text:
Talk:Robotics

Robotics To Do List Status Page

I've gone over all my uploaded images. I had to add the copyright tag to keep them from being removed. they should be fine now. --Patrik 09:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few additions to the section on gears and bits on the actuation devices. In the discussion section of actuation devices I have put a few ideas for a template that possibly could be implimented so to get a standard sort of look about the section. Please add some ideas if you have any. --SamEEE 12:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've drawn a Logo for the wiki book. I've put it up. I'll be tuning it in the next couple of days. --Patrik 14:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I've spellchecked all of the current pages of this book (except the discussion pages) with Spellbound. --Patrik 11:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've written a first introductory text on the front page. Anyone willing to refine it? --Patrik 11:12, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a section on BEAM robotics? - Omegatron 19:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've added a section about BEAM robots. More special subtypes of robots could be added in "exotic robots" too. --Patrik 11:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is the general tone of the book supposed to be? A sort of do-it-yourself-and-see-what-happens, or a properly technical job? I quite like the way it's going now, a little informal but with all the key elements there (or spaces where they should be ;) ). Maybe a little synopsis of the book at the beginning could help, explaining its intended audience. Good work so far! --Mark Lewis 20:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of keeping it somewhat in the middle. Doing a good technical job without expensive hardware. Preferably using only materials that are available to the common person. I think the book should have sections covering "getting started with" on working with metals and plastics; electronics and making PCBs; programming µcontrollers and PC; Basic AI (finding the way from point A to point B; simple neural nets,...). While the main focus should be on how to do this at home, it wouldn't hurt to add some info on how this is done in the industry. I'd also like to see more "exotic" robot ideas (e.g. completely mechanical, or completely pneumatic robots). At this point I'm adding everything related to robotics when I think of it. We can always (re)move content that goes too far out of the scope of this book. Ofcourse the other cowriters (If that's the correct word) may have other ideas. --Patrik 10:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The subsection "An Introduction to Robotics" is becoming too big. I'll move the part about robot types to its own page. Not enough time to do it now. --Patrik 15:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moved the subsection. Main page is les cluttered this way. --Patrik 10:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've been adding links from the subpages back to the main page. I used the link structure that was already used in the microcontrollers section. I added a # to the original link to the main page. Now it returns to the main page and scolls to the subsection. To add this to new pages put this:

Robotics: An Introduction to Robotics: Wheeled

 On top of the page. Change "An Introduction to Robotics" to the correct subsection and "wheeled" to the correct page title. --Patrik 11:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moved "Navigation" from "computer control" to its own section. --Patrik 12:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't find fractal robots here... :( --Popski 18:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)  Added a "modular and fractal robots" section to exotic robotics. --Patrik 06:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Embedded Systems
I've started up a book on Embedded Systems, on the EE bookshelf that this book would probably benefit from linking to. Also, anybody in this book with knowledge in programming embedded controllers should consider lending their talents to the ES book as well. --Whiteknight T C E 23:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea. If you want you can add the link, otherwise I'll add it in the course of next week. --Patrik 15:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add a section on PID control and another on Fuzzy Logic, but am unsure where it would be appropriate to slot them in. I noticed that there is a section on Reactive Systems. Shall I put that there? Daleh 16:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you intend to write on PID and fuzzy logic specific for robotics then sure, go ahead. If you mean a more generic text, it might fit in better in the [Electronics] wikibook, with a link to it on Reactive Systems.  Ofcourse either way would be great. And you could always move it later if it would be necessary. --Patrik 16:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Badly missing sections of the book
The book is about ALL kinds of robotics, right? Right now it more looks like its title is "Build your own robot" than "Robotics" (not that it's a bad thing per se but the title doesn't describe the book). Especially I miss sections on industrial robots and AGVs, which are the main application of robotic technology in industry as far as I know. Also interesting subtopics as robotic cars, robot transporters, cooperation between robots, history of robotics, robot simulation, kinematics, sensors etc are badly covered, I think. When I get time, I'll try to work such sections in even though it's quite a lot of work. TERdON 12:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Till now most of the effort put in the book went into the DIY part of robotics, mostly because I lack real knowledge on industrial robotics and most contributers tend to extend subjects rather than introduce new subjects. It would be great if you could start on the industrial robots topic. --Patrik 16:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned Pages
Either integrate these modules into the book or, if it already has the information, list them for deletion with delete. --Hagindaz 22:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Robo:Muscles merged with Robotics: Components: Actuation Devices: Air muscle and moved to Robotics: Air muscle --DavidCary 06:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Robo:Motors
 * Robotics: Design Basics
 * Robocode
 * RoboTOC merged into Robotics --DavidCary 06:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

terminology
There seems to be a bit of inconsistent terminology. I think the module Robotics: Computer Control: The Interface: Microcontrollers defines the terms "CPU" and "microcontroller" correctly (perhaps because I wrote a big chunk of it).

Some pages, such as Robotics: Computer Control: The Interface: Computers, imply that a "computer" is (narrow definition) a desktop PC or laptop PC (weighing at least 7 pounds) running some operating system that supports office applications.

While other pages of this book, such as Robotics, imply all robots, by definition, include a "computer" (wide definition) -- even "mini-class Sumo robots" which must have a mass of 500 grams (1.1 pounds) or less.

I think we need to have 2 different terms for these 2 slightly different things. (The wide definition certainly includes everything in the narrow definition, but it also includes a bunch of other things as well -- things that may be a better choice for installing on a robot).

Is there a more accurate term than multichip module for the sort of thing described in "Robotics: Computer Control: The Interface: SBC and multichip modules"? (perhaps "computer component" or "processor module" or "microcontroller module" or "stamp" ?)

--DavidCary 06:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC) edited --DavidCary 14:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the term "computer" with "PC" on the page Robotics: Computer Control: The Interface: Computers. I propose to define the term "computer" as any electronic device that can execute a program. IMO we should use more accurat terms when possible.

Multichip module is a correct term. The difference between a microcontroller and a multichip module is that a microcontroller has a single chip which contains both processing and memory circuits, while a multichip module contains seperate chips for each of its functions, which are placed in the same package. I'd say to keep the term, since there is a quite large difference between a MCM and a microcontroller and IMO the MCM stands closer to a SBC than to a microcontroller.--Patrik 06:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that there is a difference between these "processor modules" and a microcontroller by itself. But I'm a little fuzzy on where to draw the line -- or if there even is a line -- between these "processor modules" and a single board computer (SBC). The motherboard PCB assembly in a desktop PC has "seperate chips for each of its functions" -- does that make it a multi-chip module MCM ? --DavidCary 06:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Naming Convention Cleanup
Here is a list of pages which are improperly named and need to be moved:

Robot Combat
Combat Robots could be a possible addition to the "Exotic Robot" section, and could tie in multiple spects of your book. What do you all think?

 * Go for it. I want this book to grow large enough to completely cover every kind of robot, as well as cover things that are very similar to robots, such as remote-controlled combat robots that some purists might say are not "really robots" because they are not autonomous. --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

suggest move
I suggest moving the Robotics/Sensors/Thermal Sensors page out of this book into the Embedded Systems book. Most of that information applies to *every* temperature sensing system, even ones that are completely non-moving. Is there any robotics-specific information in that page that doesn't apply to such non-moving systems? --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 19:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:Robotics


text:
Robotics/Physical Construction/Resourcefulness

Though many components for a serious robotics project will almost certainly have to be purchased, the total cost of the project can be reduced by harvesting parts from various electronic and electro-mechanical devices. The general rule for selection is "the older, the better," as newer devices are now dominated by specialized ICs and surface mount components that builders might find difficult to use in their robots. SMD (Surface-mounted devices) can be used to create very small robots, if one has the tools and patience to work with them.

An example of a good source of parts would be a printer from the 1980s. Without even disassembling such a printer, one can see all sorts of potentially useful components. Additionally, several metal rods and plates contained in the printer may be used as structural parts for the robot, and even the plastic case itself could be used.

Old floppy disk drives and copy machines are also good sources for parts such as stepper motors, optocouplers or microswitches, regular components, machined metal rods and hardware. Hard disk drives have fewer usable parts but can still be a source.

However stepper motors from printers and copy machines tend to consume a lot of power and may not be as good for battery operated robots.

Note to potential contributors: perhaps there could be a "case studies" section here, with examples of what can be obtained from a variety of devices.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User:Mxn/Main Page logos

This page includes thumbnails of Wikimedia project logos, so that I can use the thumbnails' absolute URLs at the Main Page itself. See m:Talk:Main Page. There is a similar page at m:User:Mxn/Main Page logos. – [[User:Mxn|Minh Nguyễn (talk, blog) ]] 21:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

title: User:Mxn/Main Page logos


text:
Talk:XML - Managing Data Exchange/XHTML

Merge with XHTML
This is a chapter within an XML book so merging the XHTML document into this chapter makes sense. User:rtw 9 Nov 2005

This page is much better than the Programming:XHTML page I would prefer to see this content stand and the other's get merged into this.--Nathan 22:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

HTML's design
An anonymous editor changed
 * "HTML was designed to display data, not to describe data."

to
 * "HTML was designed to describe data, not to display data."

and I definitely disagree with this, although I think I can understand their POV.

Because this module is about XML, the former is the better statement in context because HTML was designed to give information to renderrers about how to display the content, where as XML is more general -- effectively any meta data can be included with the 'main' content.

Mark Hurd 01:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree--Nathan 22:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision lists
by Geun-young(Kelly) Yim

-Unify the format when it talks about the code in a sentence(ex: have a shade)

-Get ride of the highlights with different colors under "Documents must be well-formed"

-Unify the format for the emphasized words

-Have a button that links to the author guidelines page. The button moves with the screen on the left side, so a editor can click anytime to make sure that he or she is following the author guidelines. A "back to" button on the author guidelines page as well.

-Have a "top" button to go to the top of the page

-Have the learning objective box at the top of the page

Revisions by editorial board - Moussa

 * We cut off some information. Are we assuming that the user as some knowledge of HTML or XHTML? The transition from HTML to XHTML is not too hard, so we do not need this mush info.
 * Contents can be shorter. The chapter is not that long, but the contents make it seem that way. We can use bullets on some parts instead of them being sub-sections in the contents.
 * I don’t think a “guidelines button” is needed, people do not always go to the book to make changes, and it may be disturbing to some readers.
 * The chapter has exercises that refer to chapter 5 and 6, I think it would be preferable to either write down what those exercises were about (just the relevant parts) or create new exercises. This is just to stay within the page instead of having to go back just to do exercises.
 * The top button is a good idea; we just need to check if it is feature available in wiki.
 * Yim we will need some clarification on “Unify the format for the emphasized words”. You mentioned the highlights, but it seems like you are talking about other ones

Professor
I think the general structure and content of this chapter is OK because it is not meant to teach XHTML and it is assumed readers already know HTML when they start the book. The proposed changes and comments upon them make sense.

rtw 19:20, 5 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Final comments - Moussa
Looks good. You can take out the highlights where it says "incorrect" and "correct". I was not able to find the link to the validator. I think it would be a good idea to have it somewhere at the top and/or bottom. Good job !!

Question-Kelly
The link is under both exercises and answers. Do you still want me to add the link in the module?

Browser guidelines / bugs / pitfalls?
I'd like to see a section for web developers regarding typical problems specific to XHTML, and how to solve them. E.g., how to include JavaScript in XHTML 1.1 without breaking in IE when serving as text/html to that browser, an example script to serve as application/xhtml+xml or text/html depending on browser capabilities, and an answer to why IE renders some valid XHTML pages in quirks mode.

I can start adding a few of these.

Engmark 09:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Validation
One important benefit of XHTML over HTML is that XHTML can be validated using an XML validating parser. Even though this chapter explicitly states creation of valid HTML documents as a learning objective, the only mention of validation in this article is in a single sentence at the end of the paragraph on HTML Tidy. Validation merits a heading, with brief text describing what a validator does, the link to the W3C validator, how to validate using Xerces, and a mention that many HTML authoring tools support validation.

title: Talk:XML - Managing Data Exchange/XHTML


text:
Organic Chemistry/Chirality/Optical activity

Optical Activity
Optical activity describes the phenomenon by which chiral molecules are observed to rotate polarized light in either a clockwise or counterclockwise direction. This rotation is a result of the properties inherent in the interaction between light and the individual molecules through which it passes. Material that is either achiral or equal mixtures of each chiral configuration (called a racemic mixture) do not rotate polarized light, but when a majority of a substance has a certain chiral configuration the plane can be rotated in either direction.

What Is Plane Polarized Light?
Polarized light consists of waves of electromagnetic energy in the visible light spectrum where all of the waves are oscillating in the same direction simultaneously. Put simply, imagine a ray of light as a water wave, with crests and peaks. All the peaks of a water wave point in the same direction (up, against gravity) pretty much at the same time. Light is not usually this way - its peaks and troughs are often in the random array, so one ray of light's peaks might point in a direction 90o opposite of another ray. When all of the rays have their peaks pointing in the same direction - like all the waves in the ocean have peaks pointing up - then those rays of light are said to be polarized to one another.

Why Polarized Light Is Affected
So why do chiral molecules affect only polarized light, and not unpolarized? Well, they do affect unpolarized light, but since the rays have no particular orientation to one another, the effect can not be observed or measured. We observe the polarized light rays being rotated because we knew their orientation before passing through the chiral substance, and so we can measure the degree of change afterwards.

What happens is this; when light passes through matter, e.g. a solution containing either chiral or achiral molecules, the light is actually interacting with each molecule's electron cloud, and these very interactions can result in the rotation of the plane of oscillation for a ray of light. The direction and magnitude of rotation depends on the nature of the electron cloud, so it stands to reason that two identical molecules possessing identical electron clouds will rotate light in the exact same manner. This is why achiral molecules do not exhibit optical activity.

In a chiral solution that is not a racemic mixture, however, the chiral molecules present in greater numbers are configurationally equivalent to each other, and therefore each possesses identical electron clouds to its molecular twins. As such, each interaction between light and one of these 'majority' molecule's electron clouds will result in rotations of identical magnitude and direction. When these billions of billions of interactions are summed together into one cohesive number, they do not cancel one another as racemic and achiral solutions tend to do - rather, the chiral solution as a whole is observed to rotate polarized light in one particular direction due to its molecular properties.

Enantiomers
It is just such specificity that accounts for the optical isomerism of enantiomeric compounds. Enantiomers possess identical chemical structures (i.e. their atoms are the same and connected in the same order), but are mirror images of one another. Therefore, their electron clouds are also identical but actually mirror images of one another and not superimposable. For this reason, enantiomeric pairs rotate light by the same magnitude (number of degrees), but they each rotate plane polarized light in opposite directions. If one chiral version has the property of rotating polarized light to the right (clockwise), it only makes sense that the molecule's chiral mirror image would rotate light to the left (counterclockwise).

Equal amounts of each enantiomer results in no rotation. Mixtures of this type are called racemic mixtures, and they behave much as achiral molecules do.

History
Via a magneto-optic effect, when a beam of polarized light passes through solution, the (-)-form of a molecule rotates the plane of polarization counterclockwise, and the (+)-form rotates it clockwise. It is due to this property that it was discovered and from which it derives the name optical activity. The property was first observed by J.B. Biot in 1815, and gained considerable importance in the sugar industry, analytical chemistry, and pharmaceuticals.

Louis Pasteur deduced in 1848 that the handedness of molecular structure is responsible for optical activity. He sorted the chiral crystals of tartaric acid salts into left-handed and right-handed forms, and discovered that the solutions showed equal and opposite optical activity.

Artificial composite materials displaying the analog of optical activity but in the microwave regime were introduced by J.C. Bose in 1898, and gained considerable attention from the mid-1980s.


text:
Immunology

Table of contents

 * /Introduction/
 * /Organs of the Immune System/
 * /Cells of the Immune System/
 * /Antigens/
 * /Antibodies/
 * /Immune System Genetics/
 * Antibody/Antigen Interactions
 * /Major Histocompatibility Complex/
 * /Antigen Processing and Presentation/
 * /T Cells/
 * /B Cells/
 * Cell-Mediated Immune Response
 * /Cytokines/
 * /The Complement System/
 * /Inflammation/
 * /Hypersensitivity/
 * /Infectious Disease/
 * /Immunodeficiency/
 * /Autoimmunity/
 * /Transplants/
 * /Cancer/
 * /Vaccines/
 * /Experimental Methods in Immunology/

title: Immunology


text:
How To Search

Purpose: Scope: Any electronic search environment. Examples can be found in the "Searches A-Z" section of the book.
 * 1) Provide a quick reference guide for electronic information searching.
 * 2) Teach information seekers how to form accurate searches in electronic environments.

Audience: All information seekers in electronic environments.

Reference Guide
This reference guide quickly answers how to use various electronic searches. This may include an Internet search engine such as /Google/ or /Yahoo/, a library web catalog such as /Library of Congress/, a personal computer file searcher such as /grep/, or any other electronic search mechanism. Some knowledge of Boolean logic is helpful and if you don't know how to use the AND, OR, NOT operators, please read the Teaching How to Search section of this Wikibook.

Each search page should list Boolean operators, other operators, and available search fields as well as the purpose, audience, and scope of that search.

How to search...

 * /Google/
 * /Amazon/
 * /BioMed Central/
 * /Directory of Open Access Journals/
 * /Google/
 * /Library of Congress/
 * /Millennium-III/
 * /MOBIUS Consortium/
 * /MS Windows file search/
 * /OhioLINK/
 * /PubMed/
 * /Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/
 * /Wikia/
 * /Yahoo/
 * The United States Patent and Trademark office ( http://uspto.gov/ )
 * /Feedster/
 * /Other search type list/

Search Filters

 * /Against Obscene Content/
 * /For Certain Address Endings/

Teaching How to Search: Theory and Instruction
The following book sections give general theory and instruction about searching in an electronic environment:

 * 1) Types of resources
 * 2) Boolean Logic
 * 3) The information search process

Related books

 * Searching for files and within files on Windows
 * Grep

title: How To Search


text:
How To Search/Google

Google
 * Audience: All Internet users.
 * Scope: The Internet. All documents that Google's web crawling software can process.
 * Refresh Rate: Constant

Other Features
Google also allows a number of searches which can only be done using templates on their advanced search screen. Other features not directly impacting search results include interface language, number of results, and results window.

title: How To Search/Google


text:
User:Kahusi

ja:利用者:Kahusi (ja-JP)

title: User:Kahusi


text:
WordPerfect

Tweaking the Classic Mode of WP 12 to improve the emulation of WPDOS 5.1
This section contains tips for tweaking Corel WordPerfect 12, so that Classic Mode emulates WP 5.1 for DOS more closely. For a more complete review of Classic Mode, see /WordPerfect 12/.

The following abbreviations are used below: WordPerfect 12 already has a 5.1 version setting in workspace manager under the tools menu.
 * WP 12: Corel WordPerfect 12 (for Windows)
 * WP 5.1: WordPerfect 5.1 DOS

Entering Classic Mode
When WP 12 starts for the first time, it will give you the choice to first select one of several emulation modes. If this choice is not presented, select Tools, Workspace Manager, Classic Mode.

Tweaking Reveal Codes
Select Tools, Settings, Display, Reveal Codes. Uncheck "Use system colors". Change the text color to white, and the Background to DOS blue by chosing "More" and entering this color: (R,G,B=0,0,168). For an even closer WP 5.1 experience, change the font to Fixedsys. Note that this font cannot be adjusted in size, and may be too small. If necessary, try Courier New. When you have chosen View, Zoom, "Margin width" you should use a font of about 14 to match a font size in your document of 12. Uncheck "Show spaces as bullets".

Tweaking the Application Bar
Right-click on the Application Bar at the bottom of the window and choose Settings. Uncheck Digital Signature. Check Num Lock State. Uncheck Printer. Uncheck Shadow Cursor On/Off. Double click on the Num Lock icon to change it to NUM. Double click on the AB icon to change it to CAPS. Drag CAPS completely to the right. Drag Insert/Typeover (General Status) completely to the left.

Tweaking the menu bar
Still to be written

Reverting to the default settings for Classic Mode
This section explains how to revert to the default settings for Classic Mode. (This is necessary because not all initial settings can be preserved by saving to a template. Templates contain changes made in Settings (Shift-F1), Customize, but not Settings (Shift-F1), Display.)

Un-tweaking Reveal Codes
Select Tools, Settings, Display, Reveal Codes. Check "Use system colors". Check "Show spaces as bullets". Select Font, Arial, 10.

Un-tweaking the Application Bar
Right-click the Application Bar at the bottom of the window and choose Settings. Check Digital Signature. Uncheck Num Lock State. Check Printer. Check Shadow Cursor On/Off. Double click the NUM icon to change it to a Num Lock icon. Double click CAPS to change it to the AB icon. Drag CAPS completely to the left. Drag Insert/Typeover (General Status) to the left of the position (Combined Position).

title: WordPerfect


text:
Italian/Introduction/Pronunciation

see also Italian/Grammar/Pronunciation and alphabet

Pronunciation
The Italian alphabet only uses 21 out of the 26 letters of the English alphabet, with j, k, w, x, and y being omitted. These letters are not an official part of the Italian alphabet and are only used in foreign words, e.g. un whisky, il jazz.

Pronunciation is different from English. Voiceless consonants normally have very little aspiration, stressed vowels are not "automatically" diphthongized as in English boat or bait, and the distinction between long and short consonants, which is essential in Italian, does not exist to the same extent in English (contrast "dully" and "sully" for an exception).

The Italian r is quite different from English r. It is rolled, and can be formed by placing one's tongue on the roof of one's mouth just behind the teeth as if one is trying to pronounce a d.

The letter l is pronounced keeping the tongue against the upper teeth.

There are two consonantic phonemes absent in English. The letter pair gn represents a sound similar to English ni in onion. The letter pair gl, if followed by an i or an e, represents a sound similar to ll in million.

The letter h is not pronounced. Its prime purpose in writing is to distinguish some forms of the verb avere ("to have") from other words with the same pronunciation, and to signal the pronunciation of c and g as "hard" when followed by i or e.

Double consonants are regarded as split between two syllables: fanno ("they do") is pronounced []. If you say "ten nails" quickly (rather than "ten ales"), you'll replicate the sound rather closely.

There are nine vocalic phonemes corresponding to the letters a, e, i, o, and u.

All vowels are normally short, except for stressed vowels in an open syllable (i.e. a syllable that ends in the vowel). Both vowels in fatto [] are short, for example, whereas the // in fato [] is longer.

They are:
 * a: like the a in "father".
 * open e: like e in "bet".
 * closed e: like a in "main".
 * vocalic i: like e in "we".
 * semiconsonantic i: like y in "yoga".
 * open o: like o in "got" (in a British English accent) or the ou in thought (in a General American accent).
 * closed o: like the oa in Canadian English "boat"
 * vocalic u: like u in "June".
 * semiconsonantic u: like u in "quake".

Usually y is pronounced like i.

The letters c and g change sound when they're followed by the letter e or i. They become 'soft' before e and i, like the English ch and g, respectively – think of the words "China" and "gem" for an idea of the sound. Otherwise, they have a 'hard' sound, like the English k in "kite", and the English g in "gain". In order to make these hard sounds even when e or i follow, the letter h is added between the c or g and the i or e.

The Italian language is phonetically regular (that is, words are pronounced as they are spelt), however it has some quirks common to the Romance languages (changing C and G sounds, for example).

Italian has no letters, digraphs, or trigraphs that are especially hard to pronounce for speakers with experience in other Romance languages, nor does it have an exceptional number of phonemes. However, students whose native language is English should pay close attention to the vowels: there are no lax vowels in Italian.

Don't be afraid of trying to pronounce the words using the approximate English pronunciations below (or the IPA if you are familiar with it). The Italian plosives are not aspirated, i.e. you should not blow much air when you pronounce d, t, b, p, k, hard c, or hard g). The approximate English below indicates stressed syllables with capital letters. And now for all of this in more detail:

Special considerations
When trying to pronounce the words below, try to remember the following:

 * Certain words have double consonants. Unlike in English, those consonants are phonemically geminated consonants. That means you must pronounce a double consonant with more energy, giving more length to the sound. As an alternative, try pronouncing them separately but with less pause between the two.
 * Example: coppia (KOP-pyah) [], "couple"

 * "H" is silent (see below).
 * "I" can also be silent (see below).
 * Stress is on the penultimate (next-to-last) syllable in most cases.

Single letters
In the following explanation "hard vowels" (vocali dure) refers to 'a', 'o' and 'u', and "soft vowels" (vocali morbide) refers to 'e' and 'i'.
 * A : "A" is pronounced like in "father".
 * Example: amici (ah-MEE-chee) [], "friends"

 * B : "B" is pronounced like in "balloon", but without aspirating air.
 * Example: bianco (BYAHN-ko) [], "white"

 * C : Before soft vowels (e and i), "C" is pronounced as "ch" in "church". Elsewhere, it is pronounced as in "car".
 * Example soft sound: ciao (TCHAH-o) [], "hello"/"hi"
 * Example hard sound: casa (KAH-sah) [], "house"

 * D : "D" is pronounced as in "death".
 * Example: arrivederci (ah-rree-veh-DEHR-chee) [], "goodbye"

 * E : "E" can be pronounced either open as in "bet" or closed as "ay" in "pay", but shorter.
 * Example: sempre (SEM-preh) [], "always"
 * There is no way to know the pronunciation of e in a word that you don't know.
 * There are also minimal pairs such asː
 * venti [] "twenty", [] "winds"

 * pesca [] "fishing", [] "peach"

 * F : "F" is pronounced like in "fair".
 * Example: farmacia (far-mah-CHEE-ah) [], "pharmacy"

 * G : Before soft vowels (e and i), "G" is pronounced like in "gem", otherwise like in "goal".
 * Example soft sound: gioco (JOH-koh) [], "game"
 * Example hard sound: gamba (GAHM-bah) [], "leg"

 * H : "H" is completely silent everywhere. It can be used to
 * distinguish homophones in written text
 * Example: anno (AHN-no) [], "year" (vs. hanno (AHN-no) [], "they have"

 * Change the pronunciation of letters and digraphs that have two possible pronunciations (see below).
 * I :
 * Usually, it is pronounced like in "machine".
 * Example: libera (LEE-beh-rah) [], "free"/"without constraints"
 * Example of stress pronounced: farmacia (far-mah-CHEE-ah) [], "drugstore"

 * if it is followed by a vowel and unstressed, it is pronounced like "y" in "year".
 * Example: ieri (YEH-ree) [], "yesterday"

 * it can change the pronunciation of letters and digraphs that have two possible pronunciations (see below).
 * Sometimes it makes no difference in the word pronunciation.
 * Example: scienza (SHEN-tsa) [], "science"; coscienza [], "conscience"

 * J : "J" does not exist in modern Italian spelling, except in loanwords in which it can be pronounced [], [] or []. A few Italian words can still be spelt with an initial "J" as an alternative to "I".
 * Example: jattanza (dated) or iattanza [], "haughtiness"

 * K : "K" does not exist in Italian, except in loanwords, and it is always pronounced like in English.
 * L : "L" is pronounced like in "liquid", never the "dark L" sound as in "wool".
 * Example: libera (LEE-beh-rah) [], "free"/"without constraints"

 * M : "M" is pronounced like in "machine".
 * Example : madre (MAH-dreh) [], "mother"

 * N : "N" is usually pronounced like in "navy".
 * Example: Napoli (NAH-po-lee) [], "Naples"
 * When it is followed by [] or [] it is pronounced [].

 * O : "O" can be pronounced either open as the "a" in RP English "ball" or closed like "oa" in Canadian English "boat".
 * Example open: poi (POY) [] "afterwards"
 * Example closed: mondo (MOHN-doh) [], "world"; sole (SOH-leh) [], "sun"
 * There are minimal pairs such as botte [] "barrel", [] "blow".

 * P : "P" is pronounced like in "paste".
 * Example: pizza (PEET-tsah) [], "pizza"

 * Q : "Q" is a surplus letter with the same sound of hard c.
 * It is used mostly, but not always, when followed by approximant u.
 * Example: quando (KWAHN-doh) [], "when"
 * The geminated sound followed by approximant u ([]) is usually written "cq".
 * Example: acqua [], "water".
 * The only rather common exception is "soqquadro" [], "mess".

 * R : "R" is always trilled (rolled), like "rr" in Spanish perro.
 * Example: Roma (ROH-ma) [], "Rome"

 * S : "S" is pronounced like in "snake" except when it is between two vowels (in most cases) or before a voiced consonant, when it is pronounced like "Z" in "maze". There are many important exceptions, as "cosa" and "così".
 * Example "z" sound: uso (OOH-zoh) [], "use"; sbaglio (ZBAH-llyoh) [], "mistake"
 * Example "s" sound: rossa (ROH-ssah) [], "red"

 * T : "T" is always pronounced like in "ton" (without the aspiration) and never like in "nation".
 * Example: tu (TOOH) [], "you"

 * U : "U" is always pronounced like in "rude", never laxed as in "but".
 * Example: tu (TOOH) [], "you"
 * If it is followed by a vowel and unstressed, it is pronounced [].
 * Example: uomo (WOH-moh) [], man.

 * V : "V" is pronounced like in "vision".
 * Example: andavi (ahn-DAH-vee) [], "you went"

 * W : "W" does not exist in Italian, except in loanwords.
 * X : "X" does not exist in Italian, except in loanwords.
 * Y : "Y" does not exist in Italian, except in loanwords.
 * Z : "Z" can be pronounced voiced, producing the "dz" sound, or devoiced, producing the "ts" sound.
 * Example voiced: zero (DZEH-roh) [], "zero"
 * Example devoiced: zia (TSI-a) [], "aunt"

The same applies to the double-z.
 * Example voiced: mezzo (MED-dzo) [], "half"
 * Example devoiced: pezzo (PET-tso) [], "piece"

Di/Trigraphs
Digraphs or trigraphs are not diphthongs, rather they are two letters representing a single sound. Italian has one digraph and two trigraphs with peculiar sounds to English speakers.

 * GN : "GN" is pronounced as "ny" in "canyon", like the "nh" sound in the Portuguese word "sonho" or like "ñ" in the Spanish word piñata. It is always long (geminated) between vowels, within a word or in connected speech.
 * Example: agnello (ah-NNYEH-lloh) [], "lamb"

 * GL before I : "GL" before "I" is pronounced similarly to the "lli" in "million" or the 'lh' sound in the Portuguese word "filha". Between vowels it is always long (geminated).
 * Example: figlio (fee-llyoh) [], "son". This sound has the same tongue position as [] but the manner of articulation is as in []
 * There are some notable exceptions: glicine [] "wisteria", and some words that come from the Greek root "glyk", such as "glicerina" [] "glycerin".

 * SC before I and E : "SC" is pronounced as "sh" in "shoot" when it precedes an "i" or an "e". Between vowels it is always long (geminated).
 * Example: pesce (PEH-sheh) [], "fish"; sciare (shee-AH-reh) [], "to ski"

I and h
H can be used between 'c', 'g', 'sc' and a soft vowel indicating that they must be pronounced as if they were followed by a hard vowel.
 * Example: ghetto (GEH-tto) [], "ghetto"

In the same way, "I" can be used between 'c', 'g', 'sc' and a hard vowel indicating that they must be pronounced as if they were followed by a soft vowel.
 * Example: bacio (BAH-cho) [], "kiss" (noun)

Note that there are also words in which "i" is pronounced:
 * Example: sciare can be pronounced [] "to ski" or [] "lava plains".

Accents and stresses
Each word has one stressed syllable, usually the penultimate. An accent can be used to mark a stressed vowel. The accent is mandatory
 * when the stress is on the last syllable
 * Example: città (chih-TAH) [], "city"

 * on some one-syllable long words which have homophones.
 * Example: da "from", dà "he/she/it gives"

When the stress is on a syllable other than the last, the accent isn't mandatory and it is never used, but it can be optionally employed to disambiguate homographs. Dictionaries may use the accent in order to show the pronunciation: the lack of accent means accent on the penultimate. A significant example of possible disambiguation is that of principi: prìncipi (PREEN-chee-pee) [], "princes" vs. princìpi (preen-CHEE-pee) [], "principles". However, this can also be done by writing princìpi as principî, though this spelling is becoming rare.

When the accent is present it also carries information about the pronunciation of "e" An acute accent over the "E" (i.e. é) indicates a closed "E", while a grave accent (i.e. è) means that the "E" is open.

Examples: "E": perché (pair-KEH) [], "why" "because"; tè (TEH) [], "tea"

In handwriting, the difference between the two accents is not usually respected.

Italiano/Pronunciación

title: Italian/Introduction/Pronunciation


text:
Talk:Electronics

Vision, Mission, Scope & Concept
I took the liberty to insert this as a new topic at the beginning of this discussion page, although the topic is not new. I am badly missing an "authoritative" definition of the scope and concept of this book. Such information should be first on this discussion page - where you now read this question - and probably at the book's start page, too.

Would someone please step forward, grasp the authority, appoint himself/herself as the leader (at least for a day), and define the principles for the contents of this book? I am not asking for yet another scope, TOC, whatever discussion. I am asking for a decision, definition, "final answer", consensus, which IMHO is badly needed as the basis for the work:

 * Type of the book? Reference, textbook, self-study course, (application) note collection, tutorial, experiment instructions, etc.?
 * What difficulty level? Beginner, intermediate, advanced level? And
 * level for whom? Hobbyist, professional, college, universiy, scientist? (an advanced level for a hobbyist is something completely different than one for university).
 * What scope? Where to start? Where to end?

Publish this information here, so people can decide if this is the right book they want/can contribute to, or that they should probably do another book.

Please, DON'T DISCUSS, please DECIDE.

'Can anyone Include/Make a "Massive Printable Version" link? I know know much about how Wikimedia works, but I would like to print this out.'

85.72.139.207 10:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Archive
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

 * Archive 1 (March 2004 to June 2005):

 * Archive
 * Foreword
 * Contributing [to this book]
 * Table of Contents [for each page]
 * TOC [same]
 * Scope of Book
 * Depth of mathematics
 * Circuit template [circuit diagrams]
 * Quantum physics, Quantum Mechanics
 * A Crossroads [Scope of the book]
 * Unusual circuit visualizations
 * People whining about how bad their physics/electronics textbook is

''I was a bit liberal with the archiving. The same dicussions seem to be neverending, though. Just cut and paste a particular comment from the archive if you want to reply to it. - Omegatron 17:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)''

Images for deletion
Note to admins: We had some trouble with uploading images, feel free to delete the orphan images.

 * What images specifically? - Omegatron 16:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

People working on this book
Name: Goals. What you are working on? Any requests?

Wanderer: I am currently working on the background for this book at Physics in English.

Omegatron: I always wanted to learn electronics when I was a little kid, but none of the books I read provided me with consistent, understandable, correct information. In sixth grade we covered Ohm's law and I was dismayed when my teacher said I would have to wait til college to learn the rest. :-) Now I have my bachelor's in electrical engineering and I want to help write something that is clear and correct.  You shouldn't HAVE to wait til college if you are interested in something enough...  On the other hand, I'm one of the people who adds calculus equations.  :-)  We'll sort it all out eventually...  I also make diagrams using klunky schematic drawer, which I have modified and advertise prominently despite not really caring if you use it. I just like it. See Electronics/Template for the modified (improved?) version.

Theresa knott :I wrote the GCSE electricity book. I don't know a great deal about electronics, but I do know physics. I intend to copy edit, correct physics misconceptions and the like. I am also resonably adept at drawing diagrams. Let me know if there is anything you want drawn.

maxpower: Working on a BS.EE. Suffered through some awful textbooks, want to give something back and help with a simpler, more concise electronics/circuits text. Working on filling in the gaps rather than editing, for the most part.

DavidCary: There's tons of fun electronics stuff that a high-schooler could afford to buy all the parts, and understand well enough to *build*. I'd like this book to inspire people to *build* stuff rather than think this is some sort of "rocket science". I have a BS.EE., so I've also suffered through confusing, misleading explanations. There was no reason for me to suffer through learning Laplace Transforms before building my first simple blinky-light. I'm still trying to really understand Maxwell's equations and how they relate to special relativity.

H Padleckas: I added the Section Voltage, Current, and Power to the Chapter module Basic Concepts in the Electronics book. Up till now, the Chapter stood there pretty much empty. A previous attempt tried to describe Voltage in terms of Coulomb's Law and Electric Field but was too mathematical and apparently not used. I'm thinking of moving the Charge and Coulomb's Law section to the beginning chapter and replacing the glossary in the Introductory chapter or merging it with Definitions. The glossary now stands at the beginning as an un-numbered module. I have almost finished writing* and made the Electronics/Charge and Coulomb's Law section previously in Basic Concepts its own separate module as the first ordered module in the book. I made Basic Concepts redirect to Voltage, Current, and Power which I plan to polish up. I also copied most of the content in the sections on Coulomb's Law and Electric Field into an empty module in Modern Physics called Coulomb's Law and Electric Field.

 * I only wrote the last two sections in that module. Other members wrote all previous sections.H Padleckas

Yossarian : I am currently in an Electronics Engineering MSc, and would like to help out if I can. I like what I am hearing here on the talk page about more how-to elements, and possibly the best way to get people started would be a tutorial in electronics EDA (preferrably open source) to allow people who might not have the equiptment have a play around with circuits. I wrote some of the stuff on basic gates, and am continuing to work on the digital circuits section.

Sraevsky I have a BSEE, and I am interested in putting a little time into this book. We'll see what happens, though. Right now I'm very busy trying to finish up a law degree.

Filip Dominec: I would like to
 * 1) help writing text and synchronize it with the czech project at http://cs.wikibooks.org/
 * 2) upload some electronic diagrams to Commons
 * 3) change the main page to something like

Pdavis68 I'm interested in vacuum tube amps as a hobby. I'm going to try to fatten up the section on tube electronics a bit.

Thanks

 * To those who have contributed to Wikipedia, as large parts of this book are base on the things they have written.

 * Theresa Knott, who wrote the GCSE Science book.

 * The maker of Klunky, the ever useful circuit diagram maker.

 * Everyone who has contributed to this book.

GCSE Electricity
If someone could help merge the basic GCSE electricity textbook parts into here, it would be GREATLY appreciated.

 * Where is that? - Omegatron

 * It is right here: GCSE Science/Electricity - Omegatron

So, we're moving everything from GCSE Science/Electricity to Electronics ?

So Electronics is just one chapter in the GCSE_Science book ? So I can move stuff back and forth until I find a place that "fits", and delete redundancies between them ? -- DavidCary 03:58, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What about FHSST_Physics_Electrostatics:Charge ?

huh Kiogora95 (discuss • contribs) 15:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Common Misconceptions
I will list these here. Feel free to add to them. I want to put little marks next to each one when it has been covered in the book. Or we can make uncovered ones bold or something

also these: http://amasci.com/miscon/elect.html
 * Direction of current flow
 * electron current vs. conventional current
 * charge carriers, holes, etc. etc. etc.
 * I thought in terms of electron flow because I thought it was more "correct". But in reality neither is "correct" (current flow in salt water for example) and conventional current is much easier to think in terms of, precisely because it is the convention.
 * voltage and current have polarity, not just magnitude
 * Fundamental ideas of voltage,
 * current,
 * resistance [[Image:100%.png]]
 * (water pipe analogies? pressure, flow, constriction etc.)
 * "voltage" is a useful myth, but it is not single-valued in a changing magnetic field. I wonder if it would make things easier to understand if we explain stuff in terms of real, measurable quantities such as "electrons" and "electric field".
 * Speed of electron drift vs electric fields and waves (speed and motion of electrons themselves, speed of a signal is not actually the speed of light, electrons don't travel at the speed of light down the wires and back)
 * I thought capacitors charged up until dielectric breakdown, and that this was normal. I thought this was the principle behind timer circuits.  this is more like a spark gap.
 * capacitors only charge up to the voltage supplying them.
 * I figured out that RC circuits had something to do with timers but I couldn't figure out how
 * Transistor is like a resistor that changes value with an input. i read that a transistor is an amplifier and that didn't make any sense to me.  i never grasped it.
 * I didn't understand transistors, but i understood "thyristors" as the electronic switches I wanted to use, even though a transistor can be used as a switch quite easily. transistors were not explained very well.
 * I was intimidated by ICs and basically ignored their existence. i think becuase they didnt explain how a transistor was actually made, and how it could be expanded to a darlington transistor, and then to a chip with lots of transistors on one piece of silicon.
 * digital logic was not explained well at all. logic levels are specific voltages within a certain range, open outputs, pull up resistors, etc.
 * idealized circuit diagrams vs circuit layout diagrams (battery symbol vs perfect voltage source with source resistance)
 * I moved the 'Decoder and Encoders' to 'Digital to Analog & Analog to Digital Converters' as the description did matches these devices instead of the all digital devices that decoders/encoders are. Unfortunately I am still figuring out editing here so I was unable to add a description for those devices.

Combine topics?
It seems that there are too many topics in the TOC. Do resistors, inductors and capacitors really have to be separate topics? Can't we merge some topics, especially under DC electronics?

--Extro

 * I think they should be separate topics. Just my opinion. - Omegatron

 * I'd have to agree. It's good to keep the book modular like this so people won't have to dig around much to find what they're looking for. Besides, capacitors, resistors and inductors are some pretty important and widely used components. - Alex S

 * I disagree. I suspect it's easier to understand the differences between what capacitors do and what inductors do if you put them all on the same page -- otherwise the reader has to flip back and forth to see the subtle differences between RC circuits and RL circuits. --DavidCary 18:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree about capacitors and inductors, and other duals. :-) - Omegatron 18:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another electronics wiki
Another electronics wiki: http://electronicschat.org/echatwiki/ This link dead Aug 22, 2008, if it's still dead in a few months, delete it...

Focus of this book
This is basically turning into a shoddy mirror of various Wikipedia articles. We need to develop a sort of "What the Electronics wikibook is not" to focus people towards writing useful information. I don't see why we can't link to the appropriate wikipedia article for each component/section instead of parroting it here, so the reader can look there for detailed information. Then we can focus on the how to aspects of electronics, which isn't covered in wikipedia and is the point of this book. The book is to teach you basic electrical engineering: how to design and build electronic circuits, not to describe the physics behind them in depth or various bleeding-edge technologies. That's what encyclopedia articles are for. The wikibook should have more how-to, more examples, more teaching, and less barely-related information. - Omegatron 18:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree to some degree but the point of an Electronics is an explanation of how circuits work. For instance, may be this is a once off case, the Op Amps article at wikipedia is nothing short of superb but it does not cover the analysis of Op Amps that an Electronics text book would.  Things like mesh  and nodal analysis, superposition theorem aren't covered either.  Ok Diagnostic Equipment or Measuring Instruments, which incidentally appears to be a mirrored page, should in all likelihood be just be links unless some of the information is more important.  But I think virtually the rest should probably be left because the purpose of this book is more different to an encyclopedia, an encyclopedia what it is.  This text book explains how it is used.  Which now that I've said it appears to be supporting you, but wikipedia is often at a quite a high level.  A level that might be too high for this text book. -IKnowNothing 11:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. Op-amps are a huge subject, and most of the wikipedia information should be included in this book.  But we need to cover a lot more about them.  I'm talking more about stuff like Electronics/Resistors. ( Not that I think it should be deleted, but we should be focusing on more practical stuff.) - Omegatron

 * That belongs in a Electrical circuits book but is too low level for an Electronics book. So yes it properly shouldn't be deleted. --IKnowNothing 22:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Now that I've written that. I agree that we need to focus on more how to, more examples. The only problem is that wikipedia, the wikipedia article sometimes have too much information. Is this a digital or analog electronics text book?  --IKnowNothing 11:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It's an introduction to both. I think we should remove the stubby modules about things like Electronics/ALUs to the talk page until we have finished the basics like Ohm's law.  Let's finish what we have before we start adding all kinds of advanced subjects. - Omegatron 13:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that we should finish the lower level stuff before carrying on. But what level of completion is required?  75%, 50% and in whose opinion?  Another Question is: does nodal and mesh analysis matter, It is definitely a part of Electrical circuits theory and I could write it after some revision but it is seldom used in Electronics.  More often a less complete more directed analysis is done of electrical circuits. Someone has to assess the development stages.  I also agree that the stubby pages can be removed to the talk pages.--IKnowNothing 22:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Separate issue how should the Diagnostic Equipment and Electronics/Measuring Instruments be consolidated. Just a deletion of the less informative one or an integration of the information. --IKnowNothing 22:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In order to get a more functional textbook like 'feel' to this. I think a worthwhile addition would be a section containing real functional curciut designs starting at a basic level and moving onto more advanced circuit. For example, the first section could be "A voltage regulator". This would contain a circuit diagram, an etching pattern, an explanation of how and why it works. As well as an explanation of any unusual/ambiguous configurations. --I don't have an account yet (KronicD).

Where to get circuit diagrams
Check here for pictures: commons:Category:Electrical_diagrams. Everything I have ever made (including the common base, etc. diagrams) is up there now, and there are tons of diagrams I didn't make. If you are thinking of a diagram, there is probably one there already.

You can make a link to them and they will be transwikied automatically:

- Omegatron 20:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where to get components for drawing circuit diagrams

You can use components from this image:

It is intended to make drawing of schematics simple, fast and still very flexible, using common vector image editors (as Inkscape).

All components are snapped to 1 mm grid (turn on "node snapping"). Feel free to edit and replace with new version. --Filip Dominec 13:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging LearnElectronics
since the aim of both books is the same I'm supposed to merge my book with this one, however as it is hands on and simplistic I don't see how i can merge it with this one. I want the reader to be able to start creating there own electronics very quickly and i only go over basic thoery and equations (Ohm's law and power=volts*current), your book goes over advanced theories and equations that i feel the reader doesn't need to know about when they first start.

does anyone agree with reordering this book so learnelectronics can fit without a lot of advanced talk?

 * V2os has started the book called LearnElectronics (or at least contributed to it). I added a merge tag to the book, because it appeared to have similar aims to that of Electronics. After some discussion, I decided to remove the tag for the time being. But, it would be great if contributes to this book would provide some guidance, so that we can ensure that duplication of material is kept to a minimum. Maybe the addition links between the two books would help. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 05:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess we should somehow link both books close together. However I'm not sure if a merge would be the best way. IMHO learn electronics would be aimed at a high school level, while this book is more of a college level book. Perhaps we can get both books to interface with eachother so that learnElectronics would be the beginners introduction to electronics and this book would follow up as a more indepth study? --Patrik 15:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the books should be merged. I don't like multiple projects with the same goals. Contribution to the Electronics book is patchy enough already. Also there's Electricity for introductory stuff.

I don't see any reason why we can't format this in a way that people can start building circuits without learning the advanced theory behind it. - Omegatron 16:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Deciding the desired scope of the book I think is the absolute biggest problem we have. On the one hand, some want a book that just tells how to build very simple light bulb and switch circuits with no theory at all. On the other hand, we had a contributor at one point that had an Analog Circuits chapter with subheadings Sound, Brief History of the Universe, The Solar System, Evolution of the Earth's Atmosphere, Earthquakes and natural disasters, and Global Warming.

The Wikipedia doesn't have this problem because it just breaks everything up into individual subjects instead of trying to wrap them up and present them in a teaching order. If you want details, you read other articles that have details. If you want basics, you just read article introductions.

I think the point of this Wikibook should be to focus on the practical "how-to" aspects that Wikipedia doesn't provide, and present the information in order. For theory, just link to Wikipedia articles.

On the other hand, I think it's important to know what the electron fluid is actually doing to be able to design circuits yourself instead of just building from schematics that are provided to you, which is why I was including the concepts of charge in the introductory chapter. I think it's important to think about the charge that flows between two electrostatically charged objects to really understand how it flows in a circuit. We don't need to include any equations for this part at all, but the descriptions I read when I was younger "dumbed it down" so much that I really didn't understand what was actually going on. I always tried to think of circuits in terms of electron flow instead of conventional current because "that's what's actually flowing!" It hampered my understanding a lot. (I see people do this online sometimes and it annoys me.)

I'm sure there's a way to present simple circuits that people can build without actually reading the text, while still providing useful information for people who want to read it, and defer all the advanced theory to the Wikipedia articles. - Omegatron 19:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You could seperate each section so that the basic information needed for understanding is at the top under a "basic information for understanding" heading and then another heading saying "advanced understanding" after that --V2os 21:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

This is all talk and no action, getting really annoying.--V2os 17:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, wikibooks is really slow. :-\ - Omegatron 03:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm getting tired of trying to maintain the LearnElectronics wikibook as no one will post one experiment and it's getting to be a bunch of stuff that should be on wikipedia instead, with no instructions on how to make circuitry, do i have permission to "reorganize" this book until it can be used by high school level readers? order of a chapter would be "basic understanding" "hands on stuff" and "advanced understanding" seriously i'm considering putting LearnElectronics up for deletion or merging to this book. --V2os 22:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If you think that will get the book back on track, be bold, you don't need to get permission. As Omegatron said, Wikibooks are really slow. You shouldn't be afraid of jumping in and getting your hands dirty, because explaining electronics to others is a good way of showing that you understand it yourself. Geo.T 03:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that this book could stand a serious reorganization, but I am worried about what you mean by "used by high school level readers." I would say that the book in it's current form is a bit heavy on the theory (most of the "charge and coulombs law" chapter for instance) but some theory would be very helpful.  I may have been a bit slow at the mathematics, but I did not understand much calculus in high school, but I would definately question the usefulness of this book if it didn't include basic equations to model capacitors, inductors, et cetera.  I think a good idea would be to divide each section into two parts, one which introduces the basic theory about the chapter, and another which explains some more hands-on material.  For example, when talking about capacitors, the theory section could give a quick rundown on how they work, and the equations that can be used to model them, whereas the hands-on section would have something like "here is an interesting circuit which helps you to understand how they work."  Another problem which I see with the current incarnation of the book is that people tend to ignore the prerequisites.  For example, the term "vector" is explained a number of times in this book, and often not very clearly.  However, in the prerequisites, it says that the book assumes an understanding of algebra, calculus, and geometry.  This book should not explain what a vector is, it should simply assume the knowledge, and provide a link for people who don't know or need a refresher.  It would be much more efficient if there was one place where people focused their efforts on explaining mathematics, and another place for electronics.  Not only does mixing them clutter up the electronics book, but it also does not provide as good of an explanation as a math section would.  Not to argue against myself, but a short appendix with some basic mathematical formulae mae be handy, but I would argue to leave the serious teaching of mathematics to another place.  Furthermore, I think that if the book is well written, it could be understood by someone who doesn't understand or doesn't care about the calculus involved, while still satisfying the curiosities of the more mathematically inclined.  It is just a matter of being clear on which sections are absolutely necessary, and which are the more "advanced" topics.  Sorry for the rant, but I think this book needs a clear direction.  I like the idea of having more hands-on material quite a bit, but I would argue against removing the theory.

What are the goals of this book (hands on experiments, mathematical theory, circuit analysis . . .)?

What math does the book assume of its reader (highschool math, calc, linear algebra, diff eq)?

What other knowledge does the book assume (basic physics . . .)?

What should the structure of the book be, in what order are things presented, and how can theory and application be kept separate, but still be meaningful and useful on their own?

(wow, sorry for the huge rant, but I have been going through this book and reading, sometimes tweaking, for a while now, and I have been thinking about a lot of places where I beleive it falls short. Hopefully I will have some more time to help out jim 02:00 (UTC) 23 Aug 2005)

 * I'm not going to read that entire thing right now, but now i've seen an electronics book, it starts with defining a battery in 2 sentences and putting some pictures of them up, then it does the same thing with resistors, capacitors, inductors, etc.. and multimeter + power supply +signal generator (ocilloscope too but that would be too expensive for beginners) just a few sentances and pictures of parts for the first section of the first chapter. THIS wikibook gives the reader equations for electrostatic charge (no one needs that for learning electronics and wether it should be in the book is questionable.) You may want to delete the first few chapters to the entire book. --V2os 23:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Currently, there are many wikibook "modules" in the "Electronic:" namespace. I agree with Omegatron that they are really outside the scope of an electronics book. But instead of deleting them, is there some other book (or even Wikipedia article) that we could move them to? --DavidCary 06:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Electronics/Atmosphere
 * Electronics/Fuel Cell

EE bookshelf
I've recently started work on a number of books at the electrical engineering bookshelf. While many of these books will touch on the same topics as are covered in the Electronics book, i think that the EE books will have a much more limited scope, and a more well-defined target audience. In particular, These books so far are trying to be very "mathematically light", in contrast to some of the pages in this book which can be very equation-dense. Also, I am trying to lay out an entire EE "curriculum" of sorts, in the form of a natural progression of wikibooks that would follow an undergraduate curriculum in EE. I am not really interested in having all the books merged, because a gigantic, hold-all, monolithic book really defeats the purpose of having "bookshelves" at all. Let me know what everybody here thinks. --Whiteknight 22:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

A-to-D and D-to-A
The section "Encoding and Decoding" links to a discussion of A-to-D and D-to-A converters. Somebody also added a section title on the main page that is similar. This duplication needs to be resolved.

Orphaned pages
There is a lot of orphaned pages connected to this book:. Merge them here or mark with delete template. --Derbeth talk 13:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * As an update to this, I've gone through a few of these and marked those that are obvious forks of other material, but there are several pages which I couldn't find already as part of the book, and these need to either be linked or merged with the rest of the book (or deleted if it's a fork I missed). Those with (M) before the name should probably be merged into another page:
 * Electronics/Electric Field
 * Electronics/Frequency Spectrum
 * (M)Electronics/KCL
 * (M)Electronics/KVL
 * (M)Electronics/Mutual Inductance
 * Electronics/Power Conversion
 * Electronics/RCL time domain
 * (M)Electronics/Resonance
 * (M)Electronics/Spin
 * (M)Electronics/Superconductors

 * In addition, there's these two pages which I'm not sure at all what to do with:
 * Electronics/Urban Legends
 * Electronics/Humor

 * Xerol Oplan 22:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Three more:
 * Electronics/Conventional Current
 * Electronics/Table of Chemicals
 * Electronics/Charge
 * --hagindaz 01:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Another posibility for the scope of this book.
In my opinion, Wikibooks needs separate books on the following:

 * Basic Electronics (to GCSE/16 year old level), so Ohm's Law, etc.
 * Advanced Electronics or Theoretical Electronics, which takes there reader from the end of Basic Electronics to an advanced level, detailing all the theory needed the understand it (or we have Electronics (quite detailed) and "Advanced Electronics" (very detailed), which I think would be clumsy). This would be quite equation heavy, but could have lighter "in brief" pages, perhaps.
 * History of Electronics, from rubbing amber with a cloth to computers. This could also include how electronics products are made (might need a different name).
 * Practical Electronics, which is how to make circuit work, which IC to use for what, how to solder and lay out a PCB, etc.
 * Electronics Data, containing useful tables and the like applicabe to all the above. Perhaps also a dictionary of electronics and an index for all the above. Maybe "Electronics" could be like an electronics bookshelf, pointing the way to all the above books.

 * Although it looks like Electric Circuits does this already

 * Inductiveload 09:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This way, every reader has access to material that they can understand and use. Otherwise we risk losing usefulness for one end of the spectrum or the other.

Along with specialised books like Semiconductors, Electromagnetics, etc, this should give a broad AND in-depth electronics resource.

 * That sounds great. I agree that there's no need to put everything electronic in one big book -- separate books on the above topics is a good idea.
 * And Subject: Electrical engineering/Descriptions (formerly Electric Circuits ) looks like a nice overview of all the books we have so far on the subject.
 * On the other hand, when I read through the roughly 30 books in Subject: Electrical engineering and the roughly 25 books in its sub-Subject Subject:Computer engineering (some books are in both lists), I suspect that many of those books should be merged together, since the topics and the audience heavily overlap. --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 02:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging Electric Motors
I am against this merge, becasue motors have very little to do with Electronics - they are Electrical devcies. I know it is a small distinction, but it it like computers vs. hoovers. If motors have to be merged with anything (which I oppose, as motors is a very broad subject and can be expanded to a large size anyway - think of all the different types and what would happen if we made a REALLY thoughough examination of how they work from the most physical level) it should be Electromagnetics.

Motor Controller Circuits on the other hand belong either here or in Practical Electronics. Inductiveload 09:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC) (forgot to log in the first time)

Iam also against the idea of merging Electrical machines with Electronics.. Let us have these topics under a hierarchial tree. As there are so many topics in electrical engg, let us have a detailed descibtion about these topics. --Wascool

I am neither in favour of merging the two nor in support of merging the two but i would like to point out that all electronics engineers are required to have some basic idea of electric machines because they are the final objects which are controlled. It might seem a bit redundant to many whose primary objectives are vlsi or chip oriented. But the point remained that wikibooks are supposed to help students and all electronic engineering students need to study electrical machines so it wouldnt be of much harm if the topic is merged those who dont want to read can skip it.

No Merging
Electronics is the study of flow of electrons in some material. Please don't merge it with Electrical Machines.

Conclusion of knowledge
What do we know ? So it looks like motors do have characteristics of electronic parts and should also be treated as.
 * Motors - and however any electromechanical device - can be driven and controlled by electronic circuits.
 * Motors can be used to cool down electronic circuits.
 * Motors can contain electronic circuits.
 * Motors can be a part of electronic circuits.
 * Motors do work trough electromagnetic fields. There are electrical fields and flows of electrons causing magnetic fields which are creating the * rotation effect and so on.
 * Electronic parts can be influenced by electromagnetic fields. A motor in fact can be used to erase the contents of a electronic memory ...
 * Electron flows through Motors are influenced and affected by the inductivity and other things like the rotation speed, the rotation strength and more.
 * Electronic circuits can have influences to motors and vice versa.

'''In fact a electronic circuit is nothing else than e small electrical machine. It is something that has a physical effect by applying a electrical current through it.'''

New design of the main page?
What about copying the design from the-same-but-czech project at ? --Filip Dominec 17:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC) As an electrical engineering graduate and electronics engineering postgraduate with a combined proffessional experience of almost 30 years, I am against this merger, and would suggest a separate line of books on electrical power engineering covering topics such as, electromagnetics, DC machines (generators and motors), AC machines (synchronous and asysnchronous), three phase circuits and machines, transformers, real / reactive power, electrical power generation/ transmission/ distribution, cables, lighting, circuit breakers and ohter switchgear, power electronics/rectifier/invertor/ VFVV drives and much more

Electronics/transistor|chapter 4
Trasistor appears the same in both chapters, chapter 4 and elements of Digital Circuits. I suggest removing the Chapter 4.--Sommacal Alfonso (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Batteries and Cells
There are both Electronics/Batteries and Electronics/Cells. There is a link fron this page to the cells but not to the batteries but the batteries page seems more complete. What is the system of organisation here? Storeye (talk) 08:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

LTSpice screens
I asked the people on commons about using screenshots from LTSpice, but they didn't have too much knowledge of the subject.

What are the rules here? If I cannot submit a screen from LTSpice, what am I to do? I could export the plot data, and use GNU plot, but that feels more like a workaround than the ethical solution. 24.11.191.100 (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't Linear be the right party to ask? They own LTSpice, and if they allow you to put screenshots from LTspice  showing your own circuits under the GNU Free Documentation License wouldn't that be ok? An alternative would be to use free software like gEDA's gscheme together with ngspice. However that isn't a very convenient solution.

Chapter One name?
I noticed the heading for chapter one was missing from the ToC and put it back:

Does anyone remember the name of the chapter?

-- hypergeek14 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 * As you can see in this old revision, the title was "DC Circuits". I've added that back in. -- Adrignola talk contribs 22:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 2, Section four: Name Change
What do you all think of changing the Steady State section of chapter two to Phasor Analysis? I think it would be great to have a section dedicated to phasor analysis after the audience has reviewed the phasors and impedence chapters. Eng20 (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lesson 1.7 Needs Simplification
I feel that the inductance formulas are largely unnecessary for lesson 1.7. It's starting to look less beginner-friendly to introductory students in EE. Jimli536 (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Electronics


text:
User:Ibawolf~enwikibooks

I'm Ron Wolf, I learned about Wikipedia when I read on a mailing list related to the international language, Esperanto, about a website (Wikipedia) which had Esperanto content.

The rest, as they say, is history.

title: User:Ibawolf~enwikibooks


text:
C Programming/Networking in UNIX

Network programming under UNIX is relatively simple in C.

This guide assumes you already have a good general idea about C, UNIX and networks.

A simple client
To start with, we'll look at one of the simplest things you can do: initialize a stream connection and receive a message from a remote server.

This is the very bare bones of a client; in practice, we would check every function that we call for failure, however, error checking has been left out for clarity.

As you can see, the code mainly revolves around  which is a struct of type. This struct stores information about the machine we want to connect to.

The  function tells our OS that we want a file descriptor for a socket which we can use for a network stream connection; what the parameters mean is mostly irrelevant for now.

Now we get on to the interesting part:

The first line uses  to zero the struct.

The second line sets the address family. This should be the same value that was passed as the first parameter to ; for most purposes   will serve.

The third line is where we set the IP of the machine we need to connect to. The variable  is just an integer stored in Big Endian format, but we don't have to know that as the   function will do the conversion from string into Big Endian integer for us.

The fourth line sets the destination port number. The  function converts the port number into a Big Endian short integer. If your program is going to be run solely on machines which use Big Endian numbers as default then  would work just as well. However, for portability reasons  should always be used.

Now that all of the preliminary work is done, we can actually make the connection and use it:

This tells our OS to use the socket  to create a connection to the machine specified in.

Now this receives up to  bytes of data from the connection and stores them in the buffer string. The number of characters received is returned by. It is important to note that the data received will not automatically be null terminated when stored in the buffer, so we need to do it ourselves with.

And that's about it!

The next step after learning how to receive data is learning how to send it. If you've understood the previous section then this is quite easy. All you have to do is use the  function, which uses the same parameters as. If in our previous example  had the text we wanted to send and its length was stored in   we would write. returns the number of bytes that were sent. It is important to remember that, for various reasons, may not be able to send all of the bytes, so it is important to check that its return value is equal to the number of bytes you tried to send. In most cases this can be resolved by resending the unsent data.

A simple server
Superficially, this is very similar to the client. The first important difference is that rather than creating a  with information about the machine we're connecting to, we create it with information about the server, and then we   it to the socket. This allows the machine to know the data received on the port specified in the  should be handled by our specified socket.

The  function then tells our program to start listening using the given socket. The second parameter of  allows us to specify the maximum number of connections that can be queued. Each time a connection is made to the server it is added to the queue. We take connections from the queue using the  function. If there is no connection waiting on the queue the program waits until a connection is received. The  function returns another socket. This socket is essentially a "session" socket, and can be used solely for communicating with connection we took off the queue. The original socket continues to listen on the specified port for further connections.

Once we have "session" socket we can handle it in the same way as with the client, using  and   to handle data transfers.

Note that this server can only accept one connection at a time; if you want to simultaneously handle multiple clients then you'll need to  off separate processes, or use threads, to handle the connections.

Useful network functions
The parameters are a pointer to an array of chars and the size of that array. If possible, it finds the hostname and stores it in the array. On failure it returns -1.

This function obtains information about a domain name and stores it in a  struct. The most useful part of a  structure is the   field, which is a null terminated array of the IP addresses associated with that domain. The field  is a pointer to the first IP address in the   array. Returns  on failure.

What about stateless connections?
If you don't want to exploit the properties of TCP in your program and would rather just use a UDP connection, then you can just replace  with   in your call to   and use the result in the same way. It is important to remember that UDP does not guarantee delivery of packets and order of delivery, so checking is important.

If you want to exploit the properties of UDP, then you can use  and , which operate like   and   except you need to provide extra parameters specifying who you are communicating with.

How do I check for errors?
The functions,   and   all return -1 on failure and use errno for further details.

title: C Programming/Networking in UNIX


text:
User talk:Sj

Feel free to leave comments or questions for me here, or at en:.

Sj - I want to thank you for your work on the Staff lounge. It's helped us all see the old and new discussions and made it easier to read. Could you do the same for Talk:Main Page? It would be very helpful. There are a lot of little bugs that came up on the talk page that are fixed now. Again, thanks for all your tedious work. - SamE 13:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikiversity
I saw your name on the Wikiversity participant's list, you may be very experienced in mathematics already, but I'm trying out instructing a Calculus course if you're interested, go to Wikiveristy, check out the mathematics department, pure mathematics, and in the course list is included Calculus. Fephisto 22:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!
It does look a bit strange for a "newer" user welcoming an "older" one. I know I'm far too lazy to be active on either wikipedia or wikibooks (and also currently I'm employed & afraid of contributing :(. It just looked strange to me... Anyway, thanks again! -- Paddu 19:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * heh. should have noticed that!  well, of course you were welcome back then, too.  (-: Sj

Main Page/test
Don't give up on that page. It has great potential. I think the biggest problem is the increasing number of wikibooks on the main page. Maybe what should be done is like Wikipedia, the tables version just lists:

Whereas the No Tables version will list the books as is on the current main page.

I have noticed 2 portals which have a nice layout: Vietnamese and Norwegian. -- [[User:Mkn|Mkn (Talk)]] 00:40, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not
Wikibooks is not #4: ''A place for fiction texts. Wikibooks primary mission is to create open source textbooks, how-to guides, and classroom aids.'' Ardvark the Aardvark should not have been transwikied here. Gentgeen 10:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikimania and the situation on Wikibooks
I'm going to point to a lengthier reply I made to Eloquence that be found on his talk page. I have added a footnote on the project cleanup page for Wikibooks that this is something to do.

Honestly, this is an unusual request (to recreate all of the links from previous Wikimania content), as this is the first instance I have seen that transwikied content that was misplaced on Wikibooks and removed is being demanded, with threats of being blocked and being desysoped if it is not accomplished. What is more, I'm being asked to recreate not just one or two links, but hundreds of links all over Wikibooks. And besides, with all of the spilled ink over this mess, you and all of the people who are pounding on me could have added those links themselves as well with much less effort. I am just warning everybody who is going to do this on Wikibooks that unless you offer a very good reason why the redirect links need to stay, it is likely to be considered mild vandalism and be removed by admins other than myself... even inadvertantly. Orphaned redirects, and redirects that point to projects other than Wikibooks are likely to be deleted through general Wikibooks cleanup.

If there is an issue that needs to be brought up about this, solicit help from the general Wikibooks community at Staff Lounge. --Rob Horning 02:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Make a single login claim? But where?
I'm in a particularly clueless mood at the moment... where exactly is this that I put a claim in for my username? GarrettTalk 02:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Whole Earth Catalog
We have a very active administrator who has been doing quite a bit of cleanup work here at Wikibooks. I think he is a little overeager to remove content, but unfortunately there is a lot of deadwood that needs to be removed that it is nice to have somebody doing the heavy lifting even if he makes an occasional mistake. I think this is one of them (a mistake), and it should have remained on the VfD page for some additional time.

I've moved the content to User:Sj/Whole Earth Catalog for now to let you copy over the content or do whatever else you wanted to do with it. If there were some sub-pages that you were aware of, I would be willing to undelete them as well. I can't find any in the logs at the moment. I apologize if there was any hard feelings about this. --Rob Horning 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. Sj 04:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * sigh..... we still really need this book!  Sj

Fix
Hello,

There was a little error in your userpage on the Simple Wíkibooks regarding the link to your page here. When I pressed the link I ended on the Wikibooks page wb:User:Sj and that one doesn't exist.

I fixed it with this edit. I hope you don't mind that I editted your userpage.

Best regards, Abigor (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! that is indeed what I meant.  Please be bold on my userpages.   Sj (talk)

How Wikipedia Works
If you're wanting to bring in the content from http://howwikipediaworks.com I must point out that new content has to at least be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 if not dual-licensed with the GFDL in order to comply with the new licensing terms on Wikibooks. Maybe you're writing it in your own words; that'd be fine. I encountered this same issue when I wanted to bring in the Free High School Science Texts. I tried to contact the creators to find out if they'd dual-license but got no response. As a result, I can't bring in the content. So if you want to pull straight from that site you'd want to contact the authors like I tried to in my own situation. -- Adrignola talk contribs 03:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Adrignola. I was a technical editor for the book, and am in touch with the authors; we discussed finally starting to import it over the past weekend at Wikiconference NYC where user:Phoebe (the lead authr) and Whiteknight were both in the room together at the same time.  But until all the authors get together and agree on a cc-sa license, I'm just going to include the TOC and some supplementary details that I can reword myself.  Sj (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Greetings
I noticed the edits you made to your user page. Any thoughts on the current main page? Regardless of the aesthetics, we've got some new code underneath that helps provide more randomness in the books promoted and the new code is easier to understand for newer administrators when they need to add a new featured book to the rotation.

You noticed CK-12's license change too, eh? Fortunately I had downloaded PDFs marked with the original license and hosted them at Commons. It's slow going but I transcribed High School Earth Science and am now working on High School Trigonometry. Working on the latter book has actually helped me become even more proficient as a wiki editor. I wanted to have the diagrams look nice such that they weren't just copy-pastes from the PDF with poor scaling. To that end I downloaded the Compass-and-Ruler and Inkscape programs to produce SVG diagrams. Just from the work on that book alone I've become quite a bit more proficient at working with Inkscape and I'm pretty thrilled with the quality of the book in its wiki form. Given that it's a mathematics book, I also had to learn how to make formulas on MediaWiki with TeX, so I've practically learned a new language. The books that have PDFs available at Commons to prove their licensing can be seen at Subject:CK-12 books. They're also filed in their respective subject matter categories as well. Just thought I'd touch base. – Adrignola discuss 22:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk :) Sj (discuss • contribs)

Thanks for your comments
Thanks for your comments on Information Competencies for Chemistry Undergraduates. I do know about the chemistry wikipedia project and may try working to help out with references there (since I am a librarian). Sorry if I am not replying correctly - commenting back to people is new to me. Happy Friday! Cttcraig (discuss • contribs) 17:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a find place to respond. Thanks! Sj (discuss • contribs)

How Wikipedia Works
Are you going to come back to this project? --Piotrus (discuss • contribs) 04:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm waiting on confirmation of the license change from GFDL to CC-SA ... Sj (discuss • contribs) 05:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And it's been confirmed! Hurrah.  Time to get to work... Sj (discuss • contribs) 19:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have always wanted to get in an edit war with you :) -- Phoebe (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Success at last... Sj (discuss • contribs)

title: User talk:Sj


text:
Modern Physics/Miscellaneous Conversions

This page represents a listing of some common unit conversions that will be helpful in this book. Conversions are listed in no particular order.


text:
Talk:Sexual Psychology

Untitled
Since I first posted on here, I've changed my mind completely about the layout of the book. I think now that a more conventional layout is desirable. Below is an outline of what I'm thinking about right now.

The general notion is that, aside from the usual TOC, index, etc., the book will have two large sections. The first is the traditional textbook part, providing the info one would find in any human sexuality text, while the second zooms in to focus on topics that are particularly hot right now outside the academy. Homo- and bisexuality, for example, are all over the news, what with the Federal Marriage Amendment and related stuff. I'm also looking at info on sex education, rape, and pornography, all of which are politically charged and directly relevant to the lives of your average undergrad. Take a look at the outline and let me know what you think.

Front Matter
Contents Preface

Section 1 - The Usual
Chapter 1 - Introduction and History
 * Intro: what this book's about, prerequisites, thanks
 * History: from Aristotle to those German guys

Chapter 2 - Theoretical Perspectives
 * Feminism:
 * Social Exchange & Choice:
 * Scripting:

Chapter 3 - Who's Doing What
 * Number of Partners: Problems of sex surveys, fake gender difference, numbers
 * Premarital Sex: trends, acceptability, problems (incl. teen pregnancy)
 * Marital & Extramarital Sex: trends (in marriage & extramarital sex), acceptability, stability of marriage

Chapter 4 - Men & Women
 * Differences: need more detail

Chapter 5 - Intimate Relationships
 * Attraction:
 * Love:
 * Dissolution:

Chapter 6 - Special Topics in Sex
 * Special Topics: childhood, old age, homosexuality, fetishes

Chapter 7 - STIs
 * AIDS: history, incidence, trends
 * Common STIs: herpes, HPV, etc.

Section 2 - Controversies
Chapter 8 - Rape
 * Outline of the Controversey:
 * General: fantasies, consensual non-consensuality, arguments about incidence & cause, where takes place
 * Perpetrators: how they differ from others
 * Victims: how they differ from others, effects on
 * Legal Issues:

Chapter 9 - Sex Education
 * Outline of the Controversey:
 * History:
 * Research: abstinence only, comprehensive, none

Chapter 10 - Pornography
 * Outline of the Controversey:
 * History:
 * Research: types, who uses, how much, does it cause violence

Chapter 11 - Homo, Bi, Trans
 * Outline of the Controversey:
 * History:
 * Research: defined, incidence, marriage, gender dysphoria

End Matter
Bibliography Index Blank Pages that Serve No Apparent Purpose --George McAllister 21:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

other topics
lgbt and other already on other places

title: Talk:Sexual Psychology


text:
Talk:Algebra/Function Graphing

When I first wrote this module, Function graphing, I had just two fundamental general linear equation forms, Ax + By = C and the slope-intercept form y = m x + b.  That, along with the formula for slope of a line, seemed sufficient to me to solve all linear equation problems. Later, I looked in several algebra books which also had the point-slope form and the intercept form of a line. I added these two extra forms to the Function graphing module for completeness and to meet educational standards, since all the algebra books I looked at had them. After further comparison and contemplation about the two additional line forms, it seems to me they are redundant and not really necessary, but I left them in there to meet any educational textbook standards that might call for them. Is anyone familiar with the educational standards on these items? I now think that these two extra line forms are a redundant and unnecessary complications which could boggle the student's mind (Ya think?!!! This is the chapter that has ultimately forced me to give up on algerbra!) more than they might help a math student accomplish anything useful. Maybe educational standards should be changed to delete the point-slope and intercept forms of a line in modern algebra courses to reduce the number of equations that have to be learned. H Padleckas 00:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm finished with the theory in this module.[[Image:75%.png]]
This module has become quite long and I'm pretty much finished covering the graphing theory of linear functions. I've decided to end work on the theory in this module and continue in subsequent modules. I'm basically finished with this module except for problems or exercises. Graphing multiple systems of equations with multiple unknowns will continue in the next module, which I've just started. In the following three modules after that, math equation theory on quadratics and inequality theory have been written up in modules that are not really long, but the graphing of quadratics and inequalities has not yet been covered. Time and energy permitting, I may add some graphics on quadratics and inequalities to these modules. After that, I've just started another module, Algebra/Additional function and relation graphing, which will provide further examples of graphs, discuss other aspects of graphing, and cover circles and ellipses. In still further parts of the Algebra book, polynomials, exponential functions, and logarithms will be covered and graphs on those subjects can then be added to those modules.

Of course, if someone wants to work on this stuff, go ahead. I would like to know your plans so there's not a duplication of effort. You can use my graphs as "templates" to make your own or you can tell me what you want and I will try to make the graphs for you, my time and energy permitting. I have gained a bit of experience making these graphs now. H Padleckas 18:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Slope vs. gradient
I'm assuming slope is the American term for the gradient of a straight line (the m in $$y=mx+c$$). I'm a Brit, and we refer to it as the gradient. Which is more widely used in mathematical circles, and would it make more sense to use gradient as it will be referred to once a student reaches a level where differentiation is becoming involved? I'm happy to be shot down, I just thought I'd bring this up. Odd bloke 15:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, on a related note, I've always referred to the y-intercept constant as c, as opposed to b... Odd bloke 15:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Algebra/Function Graphing


text:
How To Search/PubMed

PubMed
 * Purpose: "to provide access to citations from biomedical literature."
 * Audience: PubMed is run by National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) which is part of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) in the United States. NCBI was established in 1988 as a national resource for molecular biology information, NCBI creates public databases, conducts research in computational biology, develops software tools for analyzing genome data, and disseminates biomedical information - all for the better understanding of molecular processes affecting human health and disease.
 * Scope: Biomedical literature. Pubmed "allows users to access a superset of NLM's MEDLINE database containing MEDLINE, in-process citations, and citations to articles from selectively indexed journals that normally would not be selected for MEDLINE indexing."
 * Refresh Rate: ?

Search Fields
"PubMed uses an Automatic Term Mapping feature to search for unqualified terms. When you click Go, PubMed will look for a match in up to four lists. It looks first for a match in the MeSH Translation Table. If it doesn't find a match, it looks in the Journals Translation Table and finally in the Author Index. As soon as PubMed finds a match, the mapping stops. That is, if a term matches in the MeSH Translation Table, PubMed does not continue looking in the next table." When there are no matches found during the automatic term mapping process, individual words are searched in all fields.

Alternative Search Interface

 * iPubMed An interface allowing interactive and fuzzy search

Other Features
An excellent PubMed tutorial can be found at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/pubmed_tutorial/m1001.html.

title: How To Search/PubMed


text:
How To Search/AND-default

AND - {default} skunk tomato This is a list of searches that use the AND boolean operator by default. For example typing the above example in a search box would find all items searched which have both of the words "skunk" and "tomato" in it.

Search Engines/Software/Interfaces

 * ../BioMed Central/
 * ../Google/
 * ../PubMed/
 * ../Yahoo/

title: How To Search/AND-default


text:
How To Search/AND-AND

AND - AND skunk AND tomato This is a list of searches that use "AND" or "and" for the AND boolean operator. For example typing the example above in a search box would find all items searched which have both of the words "skunk" and "tomato" in it.

Items below marked with "lower case also" may use "AND" or "and" as a boolean operator in a search. Other searches use only "AND".

Search Engines/Software/Interfaces

 * ../BioMed Central/
 * ../Library of Congress/
 * ../Millennium-III/ "lower case also"
 * ../MOBIUS Consortium/
 * ../OhioLINK/
 * ../Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/

title: How To Search/AND-AND


text:
How To Search/AND-plus

AND - "+" skunk +tomato This is a list of searches that use "+" for the AND boolean operator. For example typing the example above in a search box would find all items searched which have both of the words "skunk" and "tomato" in it.

title: How To Search/AND-plus


text:
How To Search/OR-OR

OR - OR skunk OR tomato

This is a list of searches that use "OR" oylesmgouh r "or" for the OR boolean operator. For example typing the above example in a search box would find all items searched which have either the word "skunk" or the word "tomato" in it.

Items below marked with "lower case also" may use "OR" or "or" as a boolean operator in a search. Other searches use only "OR".

Search Engines/Software/Interfaces

 * ../BioMed Central/
 * ../Google/
 * ../Library of Congress/
 * ../Millennium-III/ "lower case also"
 * ../MOBIUS Consortium/
 * ../OhioLINK/
 * ../PubMed/
 * ../Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/
 * ../Yahoo/

title: How To Search/OR-OR