text:
Talk:X-Plane Flight Simulator

Not much going on here, might need to buy XP9 and get back into it Man-hi (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why have a Wikibook on X-Plane
X-Plane is an incredible flight simulator. Without a doubt it takes a lot of effort to maintain it and add new features. Now consider that it is the work of one person. Given the state of the manual, clearly the focus is on the code. We can't help with the code. What we can do is create a good reference for both new and experienced users. In a perfect world X-Plane would come with a really nice manual. Well the world ain't perfect. We can continue to gripe about how hard it is to find detailed information on X-Plane or we can do something about it. This is something.

Rules of the Road

 * 1) Note the license information on any edit page. Do not add copyrighted material without the original author's express permission. Get permission to add someone else's work even if you think it is in the public domain.
 * 2) If you find material that you authored and didn't give permission to add it here, please remove it. Also, please let us know via the 'talk' page what you did and why.
 * 3) Consider opening a discussion on the 'talk' page before undertaking radical and major changes.
 * 4) Use the subpage structure. The Parts are arbitrary and are on the same level as Chapters. Sections should be subpages of Chapters and Sub-sections should be sub-pages of Sections.
 * 5) Consider adding a link to both the previous and next page for logical book order reading.
 * 6) Please sign and date stamp your entries in the discussions by adding ~ at the end.

Discussion
I'm guessing you have a watch on. The only way this project has value for me is for it to become the "book." The basic verses advanced nature of topics is why there is two parts. Anyway, the intent of Part One is to cover the basic user manual stuff though maybe in a slightly different order than the manual and certainly in more detail where it's called for. I was going for an analog of real world flight training. The 'Part One' page kinda introduces those chapters. I'm open to more chapters or adding in sections if that makes sense. WE (emphasis intended) certainly should flesh out the structure as you say. I look forward to working with you on this project. Mawilson 21:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But if this is to be the "book of X-Plane Flight Simulator" we should flesh out the organization early on. Your Part Two is very advanced stuff for a majority of the audience. The PD manual's organization from Austin is worth expanding upon and adjusting as needed.Man-hi 19:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The manual needs work in the organization area and this book should go beyond the basic user manual to address all aspects of operation and customization. To that end I've put in a structure and will start fleshing it out. According to the web page Austin has released the manual to Public Domain ("You may copy, modify, quote, use, distribute (or anything else you can imagine) the X-Plane instruction manual freely." http://www.x-plane.com/policies.html ) so we can use manual content here. I just think there is a better way to present it. Mawilson 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was the content here deleted? We had some basic framework going. Man-hi 00:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the X-Plane Operation Manual TOC. I suggest we add this verbatim and let end-users mash it up to make sense and tune out Austin's style. 1: About X-Plane About X-Plane What X-Plane Includes History

2: Installing X-Plane System Requirements Flight Control Requirements Joystick Configuration and Calibration Display Requirements and System Architecture Installing X-Plane Windows PC	Macintosh Linux Installing X-Plane - Considerations for Windows Users Uninstalling X-Plane Launching X-Plane Upgrading to a later version of X-Plane Structure and descriptions of X-Plane folders Getting help

3: Initial Flight Setup General Access Joystick Setup Axis Assignment Calibrating Joystick Hardware Button Assignment Setting Null Zones Controlling Joystick Sensitivity and Aircraft Stability Rendering Options Window Setup Setting up Your Monitor Setting up the X-Plane World Setting up Clouds Special Viewing Controls - i.e.: multiple monitors installations Setting Up X-Plane to Achieve the Best Results

4: First-Flight Opening Aircraft Position Aircraft Airport IDs explained Set Weather/Real Time Weather Using the Keyboard / Keyboard Shortcuts Using the Mouse instead of a Joystick Controlling Instruments and Avionics with the mouse Artificial Intelligence (AI) Demo Flight Flying Yourself, with the mouse or a Joystick / Yoke

5: X-Plane Menus About File Location Settings Output View Special

6: Navigation and Autopilots Navigation Autopilots

7: Expanding X-Plane Adding Third-Party Airplanes Adding Third-Party Scenery Installing Plug-Ins

8: Expert Essays Tuning the Handling in X-Plane Tuning the Frame-Rate in X-Plane How to Tune the Autopilot How to Design an Artificial Stability System How to Set Up Advanced Displays (Multi-Monitor, Projectors, etc) Flying Helicopters Flying the Space Shuttle Flying on Mars

Supplements Airfoil-Maker Plane-Maker World-Editor

Appendices A: How X-Plane Works B: Terminology C: Trouble shooting D: Making Objects For X-Plane E: Custom Aircraft for Hire F: Log File Explained Man-hi 20:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Help for Editors of this Book
This is a worthy but very complex project. X-Plane is a fast moving development, many people are involved and not all are fully acquainted with the various sources of information about it. As a first step, and to help editors (who need not be X-Plane addicts), there should be a list of links to sources already extant and an indication of their copyright status. Some of these have been updated regularly, others not. If every editor has to ask every publisher of all the material on X-Plane, everyone is going to be very busy but there will be very little written in the book. Editors should have blanket clearance to lift chunks of stuff and post it here; so the enthusiasts for this book would be wise to obtain permission for all future editors from the owners of relevant copyrights and post this info here in the Talk page. FFR (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:X-Plane Flight Simulator


text:
User talk:David Cheater

Welcome message
Hello, welcome to Wikibooks!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be a good idea to add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there. You can do that by clicking the tab labeled "watch" at the top of the page.

Good luck!

You might also be interested to read our Cookbook policy page and talk to other Cookbook editors. Webaware talk 02:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:David Cheater


text:
Change Issues in Curriculum and Instruction/Final Assignment Links/Francis Stonier

1.) Moving up the Food Chain: Become comfortable with questioning our own / the system’s assumptions and traditions about the way education should work.
A teacher has the potential to become a powerful agent of change in the classroom. Unfortunately not all teachers are comfortable being a risk taker. That is not to suggest that an educator needs to question everything all the time. But to meet the growing needs of students in this day and age a teacher will likely need to try different methods of instruction to serve all of their students. In an ideal world administrators would be/are supportive of their teachers asking questions and trying new things. In my experience if you aren’t able to “sell” your administrator on a new idea, repackaging the idea and being prepared to defend its exploration can often be effective. In general it seems that a teacher can question as long as it falls within the confines of the established curriculum. State standards have gone a long way toward establishing required educational content. Most questioning and creativity now seems to be in the presentation and what learning experiences are provided in the classroom.

2.) What Teachers Need to Know about Social Software: How do we know what to use? How do we find it? How do we use it effectively? +tech integration
We live in a technology driven society. Teachers need to be comfortable and confident with technology integration in the classroom. Many veteran educators are digital immigrants who unfortunately do not push themselves very hard to immigrate across the digital divide. Probably a big factor in this lack of technology integration/understanding is the ever changing nature of technology. It is relatively impossible to have total mastery of all technologies. If educators are uncomfortable using even the basic components of technology how can they be expected to readily adopt and promote newer technologies? Teachers who need the support should have regular technology training sessions. (Once mastery is shown the sessions should be optional.) Without school support it will fall entirely on the educator to explore new technologies on their own time with their own resources. Incentives or mandates need to be in place to give teachers that push they need to explore and understand new technologies. Many forms of social software can be utilized by educators that can be used to effectively communicate with students, parents, and fellow educators. (see #3) Basically I think teachers need to know what technology is out there and how to use it.

3.) Making Connections Through Web 2.0: Between Parents and Teachers, Teachers and Teachers, Teachers and Students, etc.
Web 2.0 technologies have the potential to be extremely powerful communication tools. Properly used, teachers could foster a new level of parent/teacher communication and understanding. Teachers could go so far as to broadcast (podcast) their entire school day with the children. This would allow parents to see what material was addressed and the method the teacher used. A driven and involved parent would then have the ability to reinforce at home what was taught and even add to the experience through further study and exploration. Web 2.0 parents could even post or send the home experiences back to the teacher to use to strengthen their current and future lessons. This would be just one example of how the parent could become a valuable member of the learning community that is their child’s classroom. Another easy example would be for absent students really being able to see what they missed and “make it up”. Teacher communication with the student could be improved as well. With a posting setup (such as wiki) teachers could lay the framework of lessons taught during the day and students could fill in their understanding or lack thereof for peers, teachers, and parents to benefit from and address. Assuming lessons were digitally recorded/transmitted, teachers (and even future teachers) could benefit from viewing successful lessons (or even what pitfalls to avoid with unsuccessful ones). A concern about digitally broadcasting class every day might be teachers becoming even more afraid to take chances/risks or on occasion even be wrong. A malicious viewer could potentially create a greatest hits volume of just how unprepared, wrong, and unfit the teacher is over the course of a full year(s). Elements taken out of context could cost people their jobs! Used properly and with mutual understanding and goodwill the integration of Web 2.0 technologies into the classroom could have a profoundly positive impact on education.

4.) The Future of Accountability? -- Dumbing down the test? Incentives for Passing?
Barring the tests “dying” and going away efforts need to be made to make tests into a more meaningful and authentic assessment (see #5). I feel testing is a huge issue as I have been an educator during the dawn of testing era. Not that tests were never given, or in place, but state standard tests have greatly altered education in a public school setting. The “passing fad” seems to have taken root and twisted up our tree of knowledge. Test scores are now the primary measure of a teacher’s worth and the overall worth of the school. Schools are now held accountable through the No Child Left Behind Act so essentially if the scores aren’t good enough people lose jobs, doors close, or both. Administrators are literally telling their teachers to teach to the test. I repeat teach to the test! This has now become the face of modern education. As “valuable” as these tests have now become to a school’s survival there are no real incentives for students to perform any better than the minimum requirements. 70% is the new ceiling for student knowledge. As long as the student can answer 70% of what a multiple choice test asks they are ready to progress and their teacher has done their job. So what about the students who haven’t hit that 70% mark and never will? Do we just lower the standards? Do we just wink and slide them on through? Knowledge can be demonstrated in a variety of ways and hard as we may try not everyone expresses themselves in exactly the same way. I’m still waiting for the creativity standards to be added to the curriculum. Quantifying one’s ability to draw, sing, etc. should be quite interesting to see. People learn and express their knowledge and understanding in a variety of ways. It is up our government both national and state to see that knowledge is being assessed in an appropriate and “fair” manner.

5.) Tests may be expedient, but they might not be authentic.
So here’s the million or even billion dollar question how do we test everyone in an authentic manner? Will a multiple choice test tell you what a person knows? Yes and no. A multiple choice can tell you many aspects of a person’s understanding but not all. You will be able to find out if they can read (unless they just guess and fill in bubbles randomly). You will be able to see their ability to analyze and make decisions based on the situations given (again if not guessing not to mention cheating – oh I just did). You can a bare bones view of their understanding of the factual situation presented. Also the hand-eye coordination of filling in the correct bubble that corresponds to the correct letter is heavily assessed (a skill now developed in the first grade). So yes you can find out a bit about a student’s ability to recall facts and to analyze basic situations. I say basic because in a multiple choice test the answer is there. The path is already set all they need to do is some basic analysis of the situation. The true power of testing lies in authentic assessment. Basically present students with open-end questions or scenarios and have them show you how they would deal with it. It’s a true assessment of what they really know and can do but will it ever be the mainstay? Probably not until software has evolved to the point that it will be able to analyze and assess unique responses will authentic assessment be conducted on anything beyond a small scale only.


text:
User talk:Ohadaloni

Welcome message
Hello, welcome to Wikibooks!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be a good idea to add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there. You can do that by clicking the tab labeled "watch" at the top of the page.

Good luck! Webaware talk 03:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving the rest of the content I just wrote on this page to the article page for keeps.

--Ohadaloni 12:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ohadaloni


text:
Blender 3D: Noob to Pro/Flying Through A Canyon

Forming from Textures

 * 1) Open up a new Blender file and erase the default cube with
 * 2) Add a grid and change the subdivisions to 100 for both X and Y.

(Do this by either hitting and typing in 5, or hitting  while holding  to snap and scale your mesh 5 times.
 * 1) Scale the canyon up to 5 times its current size

At this point your mesh should look like something like the picture below.

Texturing, Shading, and Deforming Your Mesh
We will now displace the vertices based on the texture.
 * Go to the Texture tab next to the Materials, and click New.
 * This texture will be used to create our canyon, so give it an appropriate name. In this tutorial, "Canyon" was used.
 * Select the Texture Type to be Wood
 * If there is a Checkbox next to "Canyon" in the Texture tab, uncheck it.

 * Click on the Modifiers tab on the Properties panel (spanner icon).
 * Click the Add Modifier pop-up menu and select "Displace".
 * Select your "Canyon" texture for the displacement.
 * Go into Object Mode. Notice that the vertices have been displaced! (To see the results better, make sure you're in Solid Mode) However, the material is very jagged. This is because Blender is preserving the original faces on the underlying material, and the original faces don't run in the same direction as the grooves the wood material has created.

Noob Note: This will also work with an image texture, i.e. using an image as a texture. Tested using NASA's Blue marble topographic pictures. Go to the end of this tutorial for additional projects.

Your Mesh should now look something like the picture below.

Improving the Look
Now to make the canyon more interesting: Note: If you go into Edit mode (Tab), and select all vertices, then scale to 0.2 of the original size. after this should leave Edit Mode into Object Mode, and scale the Object (as a whole) up to 10.0 of the size. What will occur is that you'll pack the vertices closer to each other, but not the texture. Then, you would have taken the object as a whole (including the Texture) and up-scaled it. This is the difference between Scale in Edit Mode and Scale in Object Mode. Don't do it!
 * Go back to the textures tab, under the Wood tab deselect Bands and select RingNoise. Keep the default options for the moment.
 * You will now see a "rippling" texture. But it isn't a canyon yet.
 * You should now have a semi-boring canyon, but it does have circuits which the camera can float around in.
 * To make the Canyon more interesting, play around with the Texture values for Wood. I chose the values Noise Size: 1.0 and Turbulence: 15.00 as they produced a somewhat interesting outer ring.
 * You may also want to play around the Deform modifier settings, especially Strength which changes the strength of the deformations.
 * When you are happy with your mesh, press the Apply button under the Deform modifier.
 * The displacements are now permanently baked into the Mesh, and the result should be something like the picture below.

Eliminating the Unneeded

 * We will now reduce the number of vertices. Go into Modifiers, and add Decimate. The mesh will appear to change slightly, but it hasn't, except that 4-vertices faces have been triangulated
 * Add another Modifer, Sub Surf, and make sure that the Levels is just 1
 * Under the Decimate, slowly reduce the ratio and watch the Mesh. Very tiny mesh details will be changed but the Decimate modifier will keep the shape while reducing vertices.
 * I got to 0.07 on my mesh before I decided the detail was getting too low. Remember you will be flying through the canyon, not over it, so the detail on the walls of the canyon is more important.
 * Hit apply to bake the reduced vertice count into the Mesh. Smaller vertice counts will make rendering faster.
 * Increase the number of levels on your Sub Surf modifer and take a good look, you have just created a canyon! You may reduce the levels or remove the Sub Surf entirely afterwards.

A Rocky Material
This is one method to create a rocky wall. The result isn't particularly realistic but it is easy to make. Creating materials is a difficult practice, and the first step is to know what you're trying to recreate, perhaps by using actual photographs.
 * Create a new material for the cliff
 * In the Specular panel under the Materials tab, set the Intensity value to 0.132 (our cliff isn't particularly shiny) and Hardness to 20.
 * Under the Textures tab, add a new texture in the first slot.
 * Give this texture the Marble texture type. Under the Marble options, select Hard and set the Noise Depth to 1 and Turbulence to 1.7.
 * Under the Colors tab, activate Ramp. The first colorstop should be white with an alpha of 0, leave the second as it is.
 * This is meant to give our primitive rock a textured appearance
 * In the second texture slot, add another texture.
 * Set this type to Clouds, under the Mapping options set the X, Y, and Z sizes to .025, under the cloud options select a noise depth of 2 and activate Hard Noise.
 * This one will recreate some bumpiness and small inconsistencies in the rock
 * In the third slot, add another texture
 * Set the type to Clouds
 * In the Colors tab, modify the colors to go from Black, 0 Alpha, to a Brown of your choosing, 0.750 Alpha. Reposition the second color to Pos 0.820
 * This Texture will simulate dirt on the Canyon
 * You will definitely want to do a render now. Reposition the camera and lights, and adjust render options to make for a fast render
 * Go into Materials, then the textures tab and select the first Clouds texture you entered (should be 3rd on the list if you did not delete the Wood texture used earlier).
 * With that selected, under the influence section, uncheck the Color, and check normal. Set the Normal value to 2.0.
 * What we have just done is set the second texture not to affect color, but to affect the angle of the normal in a render. This can be used to reproduce jagged edges on flat surfaces, or waves in water
 * Now, select the Marble texture again. Under the Map Input, adjust the sizeX, sizeY, and sizeZ values to 5.0.
 * Change the Z size under mapping to 5.0 from the second cloud texture.
 * You will want to render here, adjust the values as desired. For more layers vertically, increase the sizeZ value
 * You should now have an unrealistic, but sort of rocky Canyon wall.

Lighting the cliff

 * Remove all existing lights
 * Creating a new light with the type of "Hemi". Center it over our cliffs, and use Scale (s) to scale it down.
 * Create another light, with the type of "Sun". Position it where you want (position doesn't matter with Sun), and use Rotate (r) to position its Ray at the Angle you desire.
 * In this example, the Sun was more of an evening Sun. Its light is at a 45 degree angle on one side. This creates some Canyon walls light, some dark.
 * Position your camera and adjust the Energy values of your Hemi and your Sun. The Hemi will light up everything, its an easy way to give light to canyon walls that would otherwise be completely black. As a starting point, set your Hemi value at 0.4 and your Sun value at 1.5 and observe how that looks from a few angles. Make adjustments if you desire.

 * Finally change for all the three textures the Mapping - Coordinates to "Generated" instead of "UV"

Guide the camera through the canyon
The last step is to guide the camera through the canyon.
 * 1) Click on the camera in the Outliner.
 * 2) Click on Num0 and zoom a bit, then lock camera to view.
 * 3) Go to keyframe 1 and set a locrotscale keyframe.
 * 4) Click on the red dot under the Timeline, which will keyframe every movement.
 * 5) For simple keyframing set the Framerate to 8 FPS and set the End frame on "1000" then hit the play button under the Timeline.
 * 6) Now fly with shift+F through the canyon.
 * 7) After this set the frame rate back at 24 FPS and watch and see your beautiful simulation, which will possibly take too long to render.

Additional projects

 * 1) Using NASA's topographic image map at http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/BlueMarble/BlueMarble_2002.php

You have the option of selecting a small portion of your selected topographic map or you can map the entire 360x180 degree panoramic map onto a sphere. Refer to UV Mapping tutorial.

If you just select a small portion of the map of the world(cropping), note the resolution of your cropped image. Create a basic plane and do not scale it yet. Sub divide as many as required to match the resolution of your image. This is in order to get the most out of the topographic image. If you don't bother, this is not essential.

Then apply the texture. Choose texture of type "image" and do not disable this texture. NASA's topographic pictures also come in a colourful form but shaded to indicate heights. The reason why you leave the scaling to the last is that the texture is set to map onto the basic plane size of 2x2 units. If you increase this, the textures will be repeated. Adjust the strength level to a suitable level. The default 1 is too large.


text:
User talk:Trevor Sainsbury

Welcome message
Hello, welcome to Wikibooks!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be a good idea to add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there. You can do that by clicking the tab labeled "watch" at the top of the page.

Good luck! Webaware talk 04:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Trevor Sainsbury


text:
User talk:Edubestari

Welcome message
Hello, welcome to Wikibooks!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be a good idea to add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there. You can do that by clicking the tab labeled "watch" at the top of the page.

Good luck! Webaware talk 04:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Edubestari


text:
User talk:OutZourCE

Hello, welcome to Wikibooks!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Staff lounge, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be a good idea to add this page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there. You can do that by clicking the tab labeled "watch" at the top of the page.

Good luck! -- Herby talk thyme 06:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

En Wikibooks
Please note that this in en Wikibooks and as such the page you have created is outside out out of project scope -- Herby talk thyme 06:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Please explain why you have recreated the page again. This is English Wikibooks - your page is not in English and does not appear to be relevant to the project - thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 06:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:OutZourCE


text:
User talk:Infobestari

Buku Teks Terbuka

title: User talk:Infobestari


text:
User talk:203.92.59.234

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikibooks. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Herby talk thyme 07:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:203.92.59.234


text:
XForms/Sorting using XSLT

Motivation
One problem that keeps popping up when creating forms with XForms is the lack of sorting. This is an example for how it is possible to sort an instance using a XSLT stylesheet in Firefox.

Firefox XForms Example
The following model contains two instances. The first instance is the one we will sort and the second instance contains the XSLT stylesheet we will use to perform the sort.

To perform the sort we will use the following JavaScript which will load the second instance into the Firefox stylesheet engine, then take the first instance make the transformation which will produce the sorted instance. Then the transformed instance is inserted into the model and a rebuild, recalculate, revalidate and refresh is performed.

Discussion
The idea of having the stylesheet in an instance makes it possible to change the behavior of the sorting by binding controls to it and change stuff like XPath expressions and other XSLT syntax.

title: XForms/Sorting using XSLT


text:
User talk:62.171.198.36

Thanks for experimenting with Wikibooks. Your test worked, and has now been removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing material in modules will normally be removed quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our project. Thanks. -- Herby talk thyme 10:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:62.171.198.36


text:
User:Curdeius

pl:Wikipedysta:Curdeius/Wikimedia

title: User:Curdeius


text:
Talk:Calculus/Optimization

Request
More examples would be greatly appreciated--Cronholm144 10:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the examples I added should be good enough for most calculus textbooks; there are even some problems not typically posted in such contexts -- Musical Inquisit (discuss • contribs) 02:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Calculus/Optimization


text:
Talk:Calculus/Integration techniques

My goodness, it appears that the Wikipedia articles have more than wikibooks on these topics. This should not stand--Cronholm144 11:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm fairly new to wikibooks, and unless there's objection, I'd like to expand this page, anyone else who's currently working on, leave me a message here or on my talk page if you'd like to discuss direction/strategy. Thanks, W3asal (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Specifically I'd like to know how this page should relate to the Calculus/Integration page? Should it just be a summary of the equations for each technique? Thanks W3asal (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we justify each technique? Not a proof, but how one would develop the technique, including pictures explaining the techniques. I think these would be especially helpful for the more abstract approximations, such as the trapezoidal rule and Simpson's rule. W3asal (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging and other things.
I just suggested Calculus/Integration techniques/Infinite Sums and Calculus/Integration techniques/Recognizing Derivatives and the Substitution Rule be merged with Calculus/Indefinite integral since they are the already in that article and that is the proper place for them any way. I also suggested Calculus/Integration techniques/Rational Functions Using Trig and Calculus/Integration techniques/Tangent Half Angle be merged as they are the same article, one copied from the other, and then 1 example added into one. So, I feel the best name should be chosen. Then, the 1 example should be moved if necessary. Any opinions?

Also, I think this page in general is sort of pointless. These should just be sections underneath Integration techniques in the main page of Calculus. It's dumb to have a "chapter" with basically 1 main section, and that 1 main section has 10 different major subsections. It should be 1 chapter with 10 sections.

Also, any thoughts on Calculus/Integration techniques/Integration by Complexifying? No one taking basic calculus is going to know the calculus of complex variables beforehand, which they would need to know to understand what is going on in that section. That section seems more like a section that should be in a complex analysis book, not a basic calculus book. NumberTheorist (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree as far as the complexifying section is concerned. I'm inclined to remove that material completely from this book and merge it into another book, but for now I'm just going to put it under the "Extensions" section of this book.  --Greenbreen (discuss • contribs) 18:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Calculus/Integration techniques


text:
Talk:Calculus/Improper integrals

Wow... I am tempted to wipe and start over, look to text books or wikipedia for inspiration--Cronholm144 11:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Sigh. And there already was a page on improper integrals, Calculus/Further Methods of Integration/Improper Integrals. And it's far more complete. I'm merging these now. --Mrwojo (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Calculus/Improper integrals


text:
Talk:Calculus/Archive 1

question about vectors
Shouldn't vector stuff be in a Higher Algebra section? If anyone doesn't mind, I'll move it in there and add to it later... Dysprosia 08:34 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sure.... I encourage people to modify the Calculus textbook extensively, as I will be rather busy until around May when summer vacation starts and I have some free time :).  I have some stuff intended for the limits page that I haven't gotten around to proof-reading and submitting.  -- IntMan

Calculus Book
Has anyone thought of doing an anti-Calculus book (one using non-standard analysis and infinitesimals)? I think the approach is more natural and can be made rigorous.

If want to do a non-standard analysis, I would suggest doing P-Adic analysis.

You can do non-standard analysis along side any regular calculus book. Really the only difference would be on the formal section on the definition of a limit. It would be easy to write a "drop in" replacement of that section. -- julius

Environments
This books needs a uniform method for presenting
 * 1) theorems
 * 2) definitions
 * 3) examples
 * 4) solutions
 * 5) others?

For definitions and theorems we really need per-page css. Maybe this will appear in a future version of wikipedia.

The following are some alternatives none of which seem great

Just use section headings?
One way is just to use section headings. Advantage: you can edit a smaller portion of the page. Disadvantage: the contents page gets a little cluttered.

Blockquote
I now think this is a bad idea as the wiki formatting does not behave well with blockquote usage Juliusross 15:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Using the nonwiki blockquote presents theorems and definitions well:

Theorem: Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
Every non constant polynomial defined over the complex numbers has at least one root.

 * Disadvantage:
 * Line breaks, math and wiki markup can become a total mess.
 * bad breaking when printing (we really want the whole box to remain on a single page)
 * Editing the "theorem" above does not show the 'blocktext'' markup. So the "preview" does not give the correct result.

Templates
One option is to use templates. For instance gives . This seems to be a bad idea as they are not numbered and cannot be refered or linked to. Also it is not clear how large the parameter can be.

Presenting math
A suggestion: Displayed equations should done as follows to get the alignment correct (hopefully this will not be necessary in some future version of wiki software).

 * 1) Inline equations should be done using $$blah$$ (rationalle: it looks better and more consistent, and maybe if blahtex or some similar becomes used it will look better).
 * 2) Displayed equations
 * $$ blah $$

 * 1) Multilines to be presented at

{| line 1M \\

 * line 1M \\

 * line 1M \\

}

Misc

 * 1) Do we say limits "diverge" or "equal infinity".  Probably the second
 * 2) Formulae which end sentences should end with a period.
 * 3) Prefer sin2 x rather than (sin x)2  (I know the latter is more precise, but the former really is standard).
 * 4) No math markup should appear in headings (they look terrible in the contents page)

 * Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say limits "approach infinity" since infinity is more of a concept than an idea? Both terms should be used interchangeably as it increases the fluency of the student.

ChaoticLlama 17:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Graphs
1. For graphs. There is a site, wikisophia, that generates gnuplots graphs; http://wikisophia.org/wiki/Wikitex_Plot No reason on earth not to use it, especially as the code may be integrated into wikimedia at some point. This means code to generate the plot should be a comment next to the actual graph, especially for easy re-writes and changes.

Calculus of variations
I'd like to have something on the calculus of variations somewhere. Do you think it would be appropiate for this book, or would better belong somewhere else?

 * No, go ahead. Sounds great :) Dysprosia 04:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree. Calculus of variations is not usually considered in the same vein as regular calculus (e.g. to do it properly requires some functional analysis).  juliusross

Solved Examples and Problem Sets
I was thinking about adding a few solved examples and problem sets. If I suddenly forgot calculus, I don't think I could simply read a few of the pages within and be ready to differentiate or integrate. I believe adding solved examples and practice problems would benefit anyone attempting to study calculus. I realize that some of the explanations given will not be adequate for solving an example problem, and I would not have any problem updating the explanations to do just that.

Spammy

 * Please do. I've added dead links on the section pages to pages of exercises on each section page. I used the naming convention 'Calculus:[section name]:Exercises' for consitency it would seem natural to use 'Calculus:[section name]:Solutions' for the corresponding pages of solutions.Grimm 01:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

There do exist some large collection of exercises (e.g. webworks). I do not know what license they are under though. It would be far easier to integrate these then to write new ones. Juliusross

Someone should put some excersises in Further integration techniques

Table of Contents vs. Outline
Hey folks, great to see this wikibook. It looks like it will be a great help once I start my calc classes this summer. On the front page, it is very easy to skip over the line that tells the user to go to the outline page. I missed that line the first time I looked at the book, and only saw it when I came back a couple of hours later. Originally I was a bit disappointed - thinking the book had almost no content yet (b/c TOC links are dead). Perhaps the TOC could be replaced by the outline? at least until a new updated TOC is developed... David March 30, 2005

 * I would agree. The outline, as it stands, makes a better main page than the main page does. Grimm

 * ...and unless someone comes along and disagrees I'm going to start moving things. Grimm 01:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * what is the difference between this page and the "development outline" page?

New Main Page
I've begun reworking the main page from the outline. I've changed Template:Calculus:TOC to a navigation template with links to the main pages of the major sections. Thus far the section pages only have links to articles but they should have introductions to / brief discussions of the subject matter eventually.

I've added dead links to section pages of exercises on each section page. I used the naming convention 'Calculus:[section name]:Exercises' for consitency it would seem natural to use 'Calculus:[section name]:Solutions' for the corresponding pages of solutions.Grimm 01:03, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Pages orphaned by the reorginization (struck out where useful information has already been removed):
 * Chapter 1 - Limits and their Properties
 * Chapter 2 - Differentiation
 * Chapter 4 - Integration
 * Chapter 6 - Exponential and Transcendental Functions
 * Chapter 7 - Further Methods of Integration
 * Chapter 8 - Infinite Series
 * Chapter 9 - Conics, and Parametric and Polar Equations

Just a note of thanks
Thanks to all those who worked on creating this Wikibook. I'm finding it quite useful for refreshing my memory of calculus. It's great to have this available, and editable, and of such good presentation and apparent quality. Thanks! w:en:User:JesseW 07:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A-level Mathematics
What are the restrictions on this section? Am I allowed to copy parts out of here and change it slighty to fit in with the A-level Mathematics module that I'm contributing to? -- Krackpipe
 * Of course, all text on Wikibooks as well as other Wiki's sponsored by the Wikimedia foundation are under the GNU Documentation License which allows you to modify and copy if you will also allow your text to have the same usability. --Herraotic 19:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Downloadable books
Perhaps we should get this in a downloadable form and attach extra chapters for optional homework. Having it downloadable into pdf or pd form would increase the usefulness alot

It is a good idea but is not yet possible on wikibooks.

Just saying hello
hello everyone I thought I'd say hi to everyone. I'm going to add some stuff that seems to be missing like implicit Differentiation and some of the applications of integration. --Stranger104 14:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

any prequist?
i dunno any calculus but i really want to learn it because all so many math stuff use it and gives amazing formulas i can understand, except i dunno how it is proved. so is this a introduction to beginners or intermiate stage?

thanks -protecter

 * It will probably work as an introduction for people who have not seen any calculus before. Prerequisite would  be  algebra and maybe some trigonometry.

 * There are many prerequisites to Calculus that you must have a firm grasp of before you may continue. Algebra must be perfect, you must also be comfortable with trig, logs, exponentials, systems of linear equation, polynomial division, functions/funcational notation and their analysis and time and patience enough to being actually learning math.

Little More explanation?
I find it impossible to self teach yourself calculus from this book since whenever it comes up with an equation it doesn't explain how to come up with the equation in the first place. (for example: the first paragraph of the second precalculus chapter, 'x is an element of' notation also needs some more explanation. I think as i go on i'll just find more stuff that needs more explanation to be understandable.) --V2os 21:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Calculus/Archive 1


text:
Talk:Calculus/Area

....pictures...--Cronholm144 11:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Calculus/Area


text:
Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/BOTM and COTM

BOTM and COTM
Since BOTM and COM have both been discontinued and the book winners for both have been made part of the initial list of featured books, I think the voting pages should be deleted. --dark lama  14:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Keep It may be restarted in the future and it's useful to know what's been nominated or actual past BOTM and COTM in the past. Even if we don't intend to use such features again in the near future we should just keep it anyway. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 19:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Just keep it anyway" doesnt strike me as being particularly persuasive, but I think these materials serve as a valuable historical record that could be used in the upcoming History of Wikibooks book. Furthermore, things that have historical value can be useful in determining precident and giving us a foundation for future decision-making. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Comment Why would voting pages have any historical value? If the historical use of BOTM and COM on this project are recorded in the History of Wikibooks book, then why would there be any need to keep them around for determining precedent? What prevents featured books from being used in determining precedent and as a foundation for future decision-making? Featured books replaces both BOTM and COM, so is unlikely to be restarted in the future, and even if they were started again, I don't see past votes needing to be kept around for that to happen. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 11:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Keep - I think this is a terrible idea. To begin with, what real harm is done by keeping these pages?  They certainly are a part of the history of Wikibooks, and there is no need to free up hard drive space on the servers keeping Wikibooks content.  The historical value is to see just where the BOTM and COM have been useful and perhaps why they failed to succeed in terms of what the original goals of those two projects were for Wikibooks.  Certainly patterns of usage by those who participated in the votes is something that would be useful to look over if anything like this is suggested in the future.  It will be important to see the original pages if this is to happen.  Instead, I would strongly recommend that the pages are hard protected (sysop only) against changes precisely because of the historical value as opposed to any sort of normal content pages.  And they should be kept in the Wikibooks namespace as they are project related pages and not something content related as well.  --Rob Horning 07:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


text: Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/90 Days to Calculus II


text:
Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/The Ultimate Chance

The Ultimate Chance
I want to start out here that I defended the original author of this book, arguing that he should be given the chance to try and develop this, so far as when it was originally marked for speedy deletion he had only just started writing it. This author did give it a strong attempt, but I have some serious problems with keeping it on Wikibooks.

The primary problem with this book is that it can be seen as a sort of advertisement for some software that the primary author of this page is trying to get people to use, and that this can also be seen as original research. I also have expressed huge doubts about the claims of this author that you can make any profit off of his investing methods... well, read the talk page to see the discussion.

This author has had plenty of time to try and make something coherent and more "textbook like", and the last edit that wasn't maintenance or vandalism was back in February 2006. This together with the soapbox-like flavor to the content, and even broken external links make me think the time has come to delete this book. I'll leave a comment on the author's talk page, but he doesn't seem to be active any more with Wikibooks either. --Rob Horning 12:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete - What is this - Rob wanting to delete something I thought, must take a look. I did and yes I agree with the nom. -- Herby  talk thyme 12:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete - This should go. -- xixtas talk 13:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete This page was previously nominated for VfD back in January 2006, but the discussion was not archived (it was moved to the discussion page of the book). I voted to delete then, and I will vote to delete again now. I have no problem with keeping a controversial book around with the hopes that it will become acceptable, but as Rob pointed out in the nomination, this book has simply not become acceptable (and is unlikely to ever become so). --Whiteknight (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By way of historical information, the reason I objected to the deletion earlier was mainly because it was a brand new book by a new contributor. That is no longer the case and is not a rationale to keep this sort of material.  --Rob Horning 07:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete - Dangerous nonsense, should be removed and quickly. Webaware talk 14:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete I agree with all above comments - dangerous bollocks. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 22:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


text:
Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Letter writing

Letter writing
I found this book while cruising around on the "Random Book" link. This book has essentially no content, and appears to have been that way for over a year and a half now. There have been a number of edits to this page from multiple users, but most of those edits are: vandalism, removing vandalism, adding and removing the stub template, categorizing, etc. I think it's a good idea, after a year and a half, to just delete small stubs like this and offer future options a fresh start. --Whiteknight (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Blah. Delete. -- SB_Johnny | talk 00:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Delete - If there was anything substantial here, and I mean anything at all.... even suggested "titles" for people in different positions; such as a Senator, Member of Parliment, The Queen of England, etc.; I would be encouraging this to remain a stub. As it is, there is nothing here at all that isn't painfully obvious to anybody who has ever written a letter before, and Microsoft Word or Open Office in their letter templates do a better job of explaining these details than this Wikibook. I do have mixed feelings about deletion of book stubs, as I'm not convinced that unlike Wikipedia a book stub of just a single thought will ever be expanded into something more substantial.  A single sentence Wikipedia article will be expanded into a more complete article eventually.  I can't say that about a "book" that is just a single sentence or two.  The question is how far do you go to call something a stub.  --Rob Horning 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that perhaps this is an issue that is worth some serious and dedicated discussion, and not just a passing mention in an uneventful VfD. I agree with you that this issue isn't as cut-and-dry as it is on wikipedia, and that stubs that have no content are not likely to ever be expanded. Previous VfD's have shown that the community is pretty divided on the issue of stubs, although i think there is some prevaling opinion that "really bad stubs" or "hopeless stubs" or "eternal stubs" should be deleted. Precisely where those lines are drawn is open to much debate, and i'm sure several users will protest the deletion of any stub regardless of how hopeless they may be. We should bring this up on staff lounge, or maybe even start drafting some kind of stub guideline. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above. There's nothing here worth reading, ergo, there shouldn't be anything here at all. Regards, Celestianpower Háblame 19:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete none of this is useful and times have changed. There are far less "standards" nowadays for writing letters and the differences between very formal and semi-formal are so small also.  Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 23:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - nicely summed up by Celestianpower. Webaware talk 07:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


text: Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Classical Mechanics/Introduction


text:
Change Issues in Curriculum and Instruction/Final Assignment Links/Stephanie Sugioka

1. Reform in Reality: How can educators' good ideas actually be implemented in the real world?
All one has to do to know that educators have good ideas is to sit in on one class meeting of ECI 841. We have wonderful ideas about how to making learning interesting for children and relevant to their lives, about how to devise authentic assessments that will truly reflect the level of students' knowledge, and about reforming policy so that teacher and student alike will find fulfillment in the educational process. The question is, Just how good are these ideas if they do not go behind the classroom walls of ECI 841? The answer to this question is, Not much, and for this reason I've chosen"reform in reality" as my most important change issue. The first discussion question in the wiki I wrote with Frank Stonier on the topic Curriculum and Instruction Reform: Making America Competitive in a Flat World deals with this issue. In my answer to this question, I insist that teachers must work at all levels to acquire more power over their professions and their lives—in their classrooms, institutions, communities, and the political arena. To do this, teachers must insist on better working conditions, become politically active on behalf of their own and their students' interests, cooperate and collaborate with their colleagues, promote curricular reform within their schools, reach out to their communities, and instill a sense of social justice in our students, empowering them to take charge of their learning and improve their lives. Unless we do these things, all our brilliant ideas become empty talk.

2. Moving up the Food Chain: Become comfortable with questioning our own / the system’s assumptions and traditions about the way education should work (Previously ranked as #1 by Frank Stonier)
The first step in the process of effecting any reform is self-examination, and for this reason, I've chosen questioning our own assumptions about the educational system as my second most important change issue. No matter how well-educated we are or how rich our life experience is, we all come to education with a relatively rigid, narrow set of expectations about how the system should work and how we as educators should function. Especially because we are in the business of teaching, we must attempt to broaden our limited notions of the possibilities of education and to take advantage of the many opportunities for change and improvement that come our way. A recent example of one of these opportunties is the chance to use technology to enhance both our teaching and our students' learning. Web 2.0 affords us vast resources for exploring new content and using new methods of acquiring and increasing knowledge; we owe it to ourselves and to our students to explore and become adept at employing these new resources. In so many ways, our educational system has become obsolete; its methods were perhaps effective in the previous two centuries, but they are ineffectual in the twenty-first. Most of us have been conditioned to accept and to conform to traditional educational standards, and questioning them tends to make us uncomfortable. However, we need to examine our prejudices and expand our perspective so that we can envision an educational system consonant with a world that is constantly being reshaped by the forces of globalism, multimodalism, and multiculturalism.

3. Professionalizing the Teaching Profession: Teacher and Administrator Accountability and Effective Motivation
In recent years, standards, training, and certification for teachers have become increasingly demanding and rigorous. Public school teachers must have degrees in their content areas and take the education courses necessary to be certified to teach in those areas. They must pass the Praxis exams and pursue coursework throughout their careers in order to remain certified. As far as I know, no such requirements exist either for school administrators or for university professors. Why then, despite all of the training and credentials they must acquire, are public school teachers often neither regarded nor treated as professionals? Because I think this question needs to be addressed pointedly at at many levels, I've chosen it as my third most important change issue. One part of the answer to it has to do with image. Until recently, most teachers were not expected to have many qualifications beyond a bachelor's degree; the public perception simply has not yet caught up with the reality of the many new and often rigorous demands of teachers in terms of their academic qualifications and professional activities. Another reason for their relatively low status has to do with political power. When students do not perform well academically, the first person to be held accountable is the teacher. However, teachers actually have relatively little power over their own working conditions and over many of the policies that determine their practices. The final piece of this puzzle concerns the lack of motivation for teachers. Teachers are generally not rewarded for asserting themselves as professionals or demanding changes within their profession; rather they are more likely to be praised by administrators for helping the system to run smoothly if not effectively. Without monetary or other extrinsic incentives, teachers have little motivation to promote their professionalization. If this situation is to change, teachers must make major changes in their own attitudes and in their relationships with the systems of which they are a part.

==4. The Digital Divide: The various issues that surround access to technology have a major impact on the extent to which and ways in which technology can be effectively employed in today’s educational system in American and beyond.==

It is generally ackowledged that technology can be a great boon to education, but we must be careful to avoid situations in which it contributes to rather than bridges the already large divide between haves and have-nots in this country. For this reason, I've chosen the digital divide as my fourth most important change issue. Access to technology remains a problem for our economically disadvantaged students, and they must not be further penalized as a result of this handicap. The only way to begin leveling the playing field is to ensure that students have full access to technology in schools, but we still have a long way to go in this respect. In the public high school where I taught last year, there was only one computer per classroom—for the teacher's use; and students were not encouraged to use the few computers in the library before and after school. Meanwhile, the well-to-do students went home to their large houses, flipped open their laptops, and proceeded to take full advantage of the educational resources at their fingertips. In a capitalist society, the bottom line invariably divides the upper socioeconomic class from the lower. If we can find a way to ensure ample technology access to economically deprived students, we can begin to use technology to bridge this gap rather than to widen it. Through the Internet, these students can tap into the same resources available to their economically privileged counterparts. However, technology costs money that schools in poorer neighborhoods do not have to spend. Only reforms in school governance that make substantial funds available for technological improvements in these schools can fully address the current inequities in our educational system.

5. Individuality's Relationship to Isolation: Does the "American way" set us up for isolation?
As a result of the cult of the individual and the related ideals of competition and economic success, a culture of isolation has become increasingly pervasive in our society. A recent study revealed that a large percent of the population lack close friends, and within the last year the number of households occupied by single persons exceeded those with two or more. The culture within our public school systems and universities mirrors this isolationism and alienation, and because I see this culture as not just counterproductive but downright harmful, I've chosen it as my fifth most important change issue. Interestingly, a sort of primitive territoriality seems to dominate the practices of many teachers. They close their classroom doors and regard any administrators, colleagues, or parents who might enter as a threat to their authority. Of course, this is not entirely without cause; as a result of the way the system usually runs, visitors in the class rarely come to help and support—but they should. Teachers and their students have so much to gain by communicating, cooperating, and collaborating with others in their community. Moreover, they owe it to their students to help them reach out to and make contact with the wider world, and technology affords them the means to do this with relative ease. Unfortunately, the system does little to encourage this practice; for example, the evaluation of teachers by administrators is often an empty and even alienating exercise rather than a true attempt by administration to support the teacher's efforts. However, if teachers could collaborate with administrators and colleagues and invite parents to participate in the education of their children, everyone would benefit. It should, in fact, be a mission of education to break down the barriers constructed as a result of the apathy, prejudice, and corruption of society.


text:
Talk:First Aid/A for Airway

The jaw-thrust is no longer used by lay responders, which is this wikibook's audience. Mike.lifeguard 16:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Abdominal Thrusts
Abdominal Thrusts need a better way to be integrated into the wikibook. Ideas? Mike.lifeguard 02:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:First Aid/A for Airway


text:
Talk:First Aid/B for Breathing

Image request
The image that was on this page to show a proper breathing check doesn't. The head-tilt chin-lift wasn't maintained during that breathing check. Does anyone have a picture showing a good breathing check maintaining an open airway? Mike.lifeguard 16:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

O2 Claim
The following was removed as a dubious claim, especially considering that ILCOR's paper claims that O2 isn't proven to be effective. A patient whose lungs are full of pure oxygen can stay in apnea for nearly 30 minutes (half an hour). Thus, pure oxygen is a great help which will allow you to perform urgent duty and leave the patient for a few minutes if necessary. Mike.lifeguard 16:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

proposed chapter for advanced topics
I really like using D for Deadly Bleeding, as it reinforces that there needs to be a "wet check" (aka "gross blood check" or "Rapid Body Survey"). How do we feel about using D for that, and finding another way to integrate AED in another section. We could have a chapter on more advanced aspects of first aid, such as AED and O2 (which is currently included in B for Breathing, which I don't like)?? So AED and O2 (and possibly some other stuff) would get moved to a chapter called "Advanced First Aid Topics" or something, and D would turn into a section on deadly bleeding, which would remove that section from External Bleeding. Comments? Mike.lifeguard 01:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

 * ILCOR's protocol is clearly to use D for defibrillation as part of BLS, so we should use this, as we are keeping the entire book based on their procedures. Owain.davies 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * (Copied from MLs talk page) As for D for defibrillation, they do advocate further training, but they also clearly give ABCD with the D as defibrillation : See Part I: Introduction of the ILCOR protocol, under "The Universal Algorithm".  Even the title suggests that they are trying to get this adopted by everyone.  As we are following ILCOR so far as possible, there really is no option but to use this variant!  Owain.davies 08:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

B for breathing
I've been back and checked, and the protocols i added there are definitely correct. The two rescue breaths were dropped in the last revision, as there is no clinical requirement for them - once cardio-respiratory arrest had taken place, the gases are stuck where they are (because no respiration can take place whilst there is no blood or pulmonary movement! - i.e. the blood is still full of oxygen until circulation and breathing start again.)

Rescue breaths are only appropriate for trauma and paeds. In children, they are more likely to enter respiratory arrest only, making the use of breaths first to stimulate them to breathe on their own appropriate. For trauma, due to the mechanism, the gases are likely to be used up as the body struggles to keep going. For this reason, the number was upped to five.

As for the hand on the chest, i find that to be the most reliable of the indicators for breathing when in a stressful situation.

On that basis, i have reverted back to my edits (although fixed the spelling!)

Owain.davies 17:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Your rationale may or may not be legitimate, but is totally irrelevant. Resuscitation is not defined by either of us. As I noted on your talk page, ILCOR LSS and AHA disagree with the protocols you've put here. I need to see a citation - then we can think about including it. I've reverted to a previous edit; please don't add these protocols again without a good citation and discussion with other editors. I will do this shortly, but I have to run for a few minutes.  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 17:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Done  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * So apparently the UK didn't go along with ILCOR. The point of this text is that it's international in nature - the main protocols should be from ILCOR, and the ones you sent to me (btw do you have a link so everyone else can see that pdf?) should be included as regional differences. Feel free to make a separate section for them, or use . Note that those standards come from the Red Cross and SJA of the UK only.  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 01:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

ILCOR/AHA only, or include regional standards?
Owain.davies, let's finish discussing this issue before making changes. I reverted to the previous version, which is correct - it includes ERC and ILCOR/AHA protocols. The issue here is whether we're going to go strictly by what ILCOR says or whether we're going to include notes about regional differences. I think it's entirely appropriate to include regional differences from ILCOR's protocols. However, you seem to be misinterpreting the CoSTR. As you know, the AHA hosted the conference in Dallas; they also interpreted the standards. Instead of a dense technical paper aimed at the resuscitation community, the AHA published a concise interpretation aimed at those implementing the changes.

The only citation you gave for ILCOR wanting EMS to be called after checking breathing is the diagram for the universal algorithm. Unfortunately, the text of the document contradicts the algorithm on that exact issue. Luckily for us, we don't have to guess at whether the diagram is correct or whether it's an oversimplification and instead we're supposed to implement what's in the text of the paper. The AHA has already done that for us, and it turns out that the universal algorithm you cited was an oversimplification.

It should be noted that the CoSTR is not technically a set of protocols - the ERC went in a different direction on several major points, which is their right. And those differences are highlighted for people in those areas. So far as I know, the rest of the ILCOR member councils followed ILCOR's lead though. It makes sense that the modules should reflect the consensus (from ILCOR, as interpreted by AHA if need be) and any deviation from that (ERC standards) should be highlighted in boxes as is done currently. I don't see how that's a problem.  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 01:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I can't find anywhere in the text that contradicts it (except for paeds where summon ems comes after a round of CPR). The AHA, ERC and the others all make their own decision based on ILCORs consenus.  I think that including regional variations is confusing for any potential rescuers as it intimates that you should do things differently in different places (and also weakens the rationale for any given procedure).  For that reason, i think you were right in the first place, and we should undertake to follow the original ILCOR text (regardless of whether adopted by all or any of the member councils), as these guidelines will be good, understandable and based on sound science, without confusing any potential reader.

 * On this basis we should:

 * Change to D for defibrillation
 * Move to Call for help after unconscious and call for ems after breathing (except paeds)
 * Keep the 2 initial breaths in for adults

 * If we keep within one set of protocols, we can manage a clear document, based on the outputs of the highest authority (rather than regional variations). Owain.davies 06:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Here's one contradiction, on the same page:

 * You'll notice that EMS comes before CPR for adults and after CPR for children and infants.
 * They also noted on the same page that the Universal Algorithm diagram is not to be taken literally:

 * They also require training for AED use by lay responders, which would require keeping in Advanced Topics:

 * If you want to follow what ILCOR's paper recommends, I suggest you read it in-depth, since you've already made several errors of fact.
 * Change to D for defibrillation Not supported by ILCOR
 * Move to Call for help after unconscious and call for ems after breathing (except paeds) Also not supported by ILCOR
 * Keep the 2 initial breaths in for adults ✅
 * That's what we have already. If you want to keep ERC protocols, go ahead - I think it's a good idea. But now that you've pushed so hard to accept only what ILCOR's paper says, I'm sure you'll want to throw those out the window, right??  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 14:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * my errors of fact? let me point you in the correct direction.
 * Change to D for defibrillation - Supported by ILCOR where is says "Defibrillation is both a BLS and ALS skill"
 * Move to call for help after unconscious and ems after breathing - in black and white on the text. You're saying that EMS comes before CPR - exactly right and what i've been saying.  Before CPR, not before breathing checks. The only 'variation' it points to in the whole document is for paeds, where is CPR before calling.  The important first step to the chain of survival is 'recognition of the emergency' - i.e. you must recognise that they are not breathing before moving to stage two.  Elementary my dear Mike.
 * Keep to 2 breaths - all fine, we can agree (it's called compromise - i can see that ILCOR varies to the ERC protocol and therefore will accept it. Now if you'd just accept that ILCOR varies to your AHA protocol in some places too, we could get on with it)

 * They do intend the universal algorithm to be taken literally, with an exception for paeds. We should teach one system to avoid confusion, and keep with the ILCOR guidelines.  Stop trying to force your regional variation on it! Owain.davies 17:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * EMS: I think we're using the same words to mean different things. CPR is open airway-check breathing-2 breaths-30 compressions-repeat. You're using CPR to mean 30 compressions-2 breaths-repeat. I'm pretty sure that they want EMS to come before the BLS sequence of ABC. AHA standards don't vary from ILCOR. If you're interested, I checked in Critical Care and Resuscitation for the standards from the ANZCR, I checked the RCSA standards, I checked HSFC standards, and I checked the standards for IAHF, and they have all disagreed with your interpretation on this point. Everyone else seems to think that ILCOR's paper says to activate EMS before even starting ABCs for adults. If the founding members of ILCOR agreeing on a single interpretation (with one exception - ERC, but they didn't follow ILCOR on several major points) isn't clear enough for you to accept it, I'm not sure what would be. The only regional variation from call first is from the ERC. Since you're so committed to not including regional variations, you should delete those regional notes highlighting ERC protocols.
 * AED: AED may be part of BLS, and I think that's great. But the treatment recommendations from the CoSTR specifically say that additional training is required and go on to outline how PAD programs should be set up... which includes training of responders (Circulation Volume 112, Issue 22 Supplement; November 29, 2005; Page 18; 1st column; under Treatment Recommendations). Perhaps in light of that, we should rename the chapter to Primary Assessment & CPR for clarity. But certainly we need to recognize that specific additional training is required, and reflect that in the text.
 * 2 breaths: Keep to 2 breaths - of course. Please delete the ERC variations.
 *  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 18:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I've had a busy couple of weeks, so i've not been here, but i'm back and i've been doing some checking. I have to say i think you are slightly misguided.  CPR is simply the process of compressions and ventilations - it doesn't include the checking.  The ILCOR guidelines are clear (and these respected doctors and scientists don't make it up for fun).  As for the other societies, i'm having real difficulties finding their guidelines on the internet (so if you have links that would be appreciated), but i'm sceptical - ILCOR is clear and made up of the opinion of its members.  You can't reach that sort of consensus with just 1 member agreeing!  Until you can present actual evidence, the call for ambulance must stay after the breathing check. Owain.davies 07:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The ANZCR standards are published in Critical Care and Resuscitation (you'll need to do some sort of database search - I used my university database account to gain access.
 * The AHA standards are in First Aid/Appendix C: Sources
 * RCSA standards, HSFC standards (I went from memory, as this is what I teach, but it's certainly published online somewhere), and IAHF (in Spanish, but explicitly uses AHA standards) standards are all posted on their websites.
 * ERC standards are in First Aid/Appendix C: Sources
 * Of all these member councils, only ERC calls EMS after opening the airway and checking breathing. Since the ERC didn't go along with ILCOR on several other major points, we can't even assume that their policy on this issue is an attempt to interpret the CoSTR, whereas we can say with certainty that the other councils have done exactly that, and agreed on a single interpretation.
 *  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 12:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I think we can assume that, given that ILCOR explicitly write it in the text! The sites you give are a bit wooly on detail, so i still say we stick with what is written as the universal algorithm. They didn't write it for fun, and they are highest authority. Owain.davies 23:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

 * We've already been over the universal algorithm issue. The text of the paper contradicts the diagram, and all the founding members of ILCOR except ERC agree with the text - not the diagram. I quoted the text of the paper before, and I'll do it again:

 * Again: all the founding members have that exact policy in their standards - only ERC disagrees (as is their right). I don't mind having those differences mentioned; that's why I created . The websites are not "wooly" on detail; I checked them myself - they all agree on this point:
 * AHA:

 * HSFC and IAHF collaborated with AHA on those standards, and simply reference the paper in Circulation. HSFC publishes their standards in print; IAHF standards are in Spanish, but are identical to the AHA standards, because... they are the AHA standards.
 * RCSA:

 * ANZCR: Is published in Critical Care and Resuscitation, so if you can't take my word for it, you'll have to do a database search somehow.
 * That's clear enough for me. EMS before Airway or Breathing according to ILCOR CoSTR text (although their Universal Algorithm diagram has caused confusion in some), AHA, HSFC, IAHF, RCSA, with ERC dissenting.
 *  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 04:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I found a poster I could copy ANZCR standards from:

 *  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 04:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the ANZCR and RCSA standards give to call the ambulance before checking breathing. However, that first ILCOR quote and the AHA one do not lead to believe that. It says to call before commencing CPR, not before checking breathing. CPR is ONLY the performance of breaths of compressions. This therefore backs up the universal algorithm diagram given. As for the AHA, i think they mean the same thing because you wouldn't see that the patient was unresponsive and then immediately leave to get an AED - that verges on criminal negligence. If they were able to breathe on their own and just needed their airway opened, then you've effectively just killed them by going away to get something you didn't need, where the recovery position would have been adequate.

In conclusion the ILCOR text matches the diagram perfectly, and the AHA guidance is either poorly written (because it causes confusion) or just negligent. Owain.davies 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Your concern about leaving a victim with a closed airway to get an AED and activate EMS is appropriate - first aiders should move the victim into the semi-prone position so that the airway is protected while they're gone. This applies whether they're breathing or not, so checking before activating EMS is an unnecessary delay.
 * The reason I think that ILCOR meant CPR to mean what I said is that they go on to describe it that way. They say, in essence, "If your victim isn't responsive, call 911" and then go on to describe CPR as "Open the airway, check breathing..." The AHA does the same thing (including in the quote you though wasn't clear on that issue), and makes it abundantly clear in their candidate- and instructor-level resources (for example, the ones posted in First Aid/Appendix C: Sources) The quote I gave from the AHA above says "The lone rescuer should telephone the emergency response system and retrieve an AED (if available). The rescuer should then return to the victim... The lay rescuer should open the airway and check for normal breathing. If no normal breathing is detected, the rescuer should give 2 rescue breaths. Immediately after delivery of the rescue breaths, the rescuer should begin cycles of 30 chest compressions and 2 ventilations." Does that not clearly mean that they want rescuers to call EMS, then open the airway, check for breathing and (if the victim isn't breathing normally) give 2 rescue breaths?? I think it does mean that.
 * The ILCOR text only matches their diagram because you're misreading it that way. Similarly, you've misread the AHA's position; they've endorsed all the programs which have produced the resources I'm going from - resources which make this issue abundantly clear. Again, all the founding members except ERC thought that the CoSTR wanted EMS to be activated before starting ABCs, so the most of the experts responsible for interpreting the document agree with what I've been saying here.
 *  – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 16:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Without meaning to be flippant, do you think it is more likely that the highly learned doctors and scientists of ILCOR released this paper with the consistent message which i am reading out of this document (and you still haven't come up with any repudiation of from the ILCOR document itself) or do you think its more likely that this respected, pier reviewed group decided to give two different sets of instructions in their paper! Even less likely is that this is an oversight (as it would have been picked up and ammended as one of the published erratum).  I'm sorry Mike, but the ILCOR document follows my interpretation only.  If some of the member societies chose to ignore this part (as they chose to ignore other parts) then so be it, but the ILCOR guideline is unequivocal. Owain.davies 18:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your own words, in discussing how-tos concerning CPR on Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

"Strongly Disagree - Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, nor does it need to link to one at the top of the page. The first action for anyone witnessing cardiac arrest is calling an ambulance. The ambulance controller will talk them through CPR - far more effective than running back to your computer screen. I can't imagine anyone looking up CPR in wikipedia as the first thing they do if someone they know collapses. Owain.davies 09:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)"

 * – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 21:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * That, of course, is for someone who is not trained in first aid! The question there surrounded whether someone might run to their computer for first aid instructions, rather than the phone when they realise the person is not breathing or not well.  The first aider should always be opening the airway and checking breathing before calling an ambulance.  This is still the ILCOR position, and isn't likely to change until the next revision (2010 i believe).  Owain.davies 06:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:First Aid/B for Breathing


text:
Talk:First Aid/Authors

If you've edited this Wikibook, feel free to add yourself to the list of authors. In all likelihood, nobody will do it for you. Mike.lifeguard 16:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:First Aid/Authors


text:
Talk:First Aid/Primary Assessment & Basic Life Support

I really like using D for Deadly Bleeding, as it reinforces that there needs to be a "wet check" (aka "gross blood check" or "Rapid Body Survey"). How do we feel about using D for that, and finding another way to integrate AED in another section. We could have a chapter on more advanced aspects of first aid, such as AED and O2 (which is currently included in B for Breathing, which I don't like)?? So AED and O2 (and possibly some other stuff) would get moved to a chapter called "Advanced First Aid Topics" or something, and D would turn into a section on deadly bleeding, which would remove that section from External Bleeding. Comments? Mike.lifeguard 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! Mike.lifeguard 18:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Lore of Learning/Process/Discuss Structure

=Re: Asia=

Re: The Tao of Learning
I see a book with this title exists already. If anyone knows the author, please ask her to make contact and consider contributing to this section. Do we need to change the title?

Also, are there any Chinese people out there who would like to write this section? (perhaps ideally in Chinese, for translation later?) Ktucker 17:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Change Issues in Curriculum and Instruction/Curriculum and instruction reform: Making America competitive in a "flat" world

i love the cartoon! Pete 17:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


text:
Talk:The Computer Revolution/Hardware/Price

Are ten year old children editing this, and many other pages?


text:
Feminism/Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Early Life
Elizabeth Cady was born in 1815 to Daniel and Mary Livingston Cady, a prestigious family of Johnstown, NY. One of Elizabeth's early memories was that her parents didn't seem to want girl children, especially after Elizabeth's sister was born. This probably had something to do with Stanton's ideas later in life.

Education
Cady attended Johnstown Academy and while there studied Greek and Mathematics. Her other achievements were learning to ride a horse and quickly showed her father that she could debate. In 1830, after graduating from the academy, she attended Troy Female Seminary, which was the only school to offer an education equivalent to a boy's school.

Elizabeth frequently went to court with her father, who was a distinguished lawyer. Elizabeth was quite unnerved to see the law function, since it was very unfair to women. During these observations she met Henry Stanton and in 1840 they were married.

title: Feminism/Elizabeth Cady Stanton


text:
Talk:Yet Another Haskell Tutorial/Language basics

Stylistically I think it would be nicer if the factorial and exponent functions' base cases were 0. Anyone agree --82.70.93.66 18:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the explanation of why foldr can work on infinite lists and why foldl can't should be re-worded. As a beginner, it took me *forever* to figure out what this was talking about,and the whole time I thought that the reverse of what was being said was actually true. For example, in the foldl example, it's not obvious what is meant by "going to the end of the list". What a beginner (e.g. myself) is going to think is that it's not going to the end of the list at all. Furthermore, the part about combining the initial value with the final element of the list is completely counterintuitive, because the derivation proceeds from (((1 - 4) - 8) - 5) to (((-3) - 8) - 5) which is combining the initial value with the first value of the list. The only way i was finally able to see what this explanation was talking about is by writing the entire derivation in pre-fix notation. (-) ((-) ((-) 1 4) 8) 5. When it's written like this, it's much clearer that foldl would have to evaluate an infinite list before having a concrete value for the first argument. 12.14.60.12 (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I also think the foldr vs foldl efficiency note is very confusing. I'm very much a haskell newbie, but I've pondered over it forever, and the only case where I can figure it might make a bit of difference is when your fold is outputting a list. If your fold is outputting a single value, I don't think it matters what kind of fold you use—if your list argument is infinite, you're doomed. Personally I would leave this whole note out, but it could also be clarified. --Jonah

The Exercise that begins "Write a function that takes a list of pairs..." appears before the user has been told how to define a function. --Ellen 66.92.186.7 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Compatibility issue - GHC
On GHCi 7.4.1 (on Ubuntu 12.10) Char.toUpper is not in scope. One must use Data.Char.toUpper instead. To run GHCi in Haskell 98 (and force Char.toUpper into scope) compatibility mode, use: $ ghci -package haskell98 -hide-package base Maybe this is noted elsewhere and I missed it.

123.2.122.182 (discuss) 00:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

factorial
Hi. What about : fac n = product [1..n]

? ( www.willamette.edu/~fruehr/haskell/evolution.html ) --Adam majewski (discuss • contribs) 20:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


text: Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Knot/Bowline on a bight


text: Template:Knot

title: Template:Knot


text:
Talk:Rhetoric and Composition/Enumeration consistency

Actually, "First, ..., secondly, ...", is the more traditional usage. I would consider making note of this within the confines of this page. The Chicago Manual of Style, however, prescribes "first, second, third".


text:
Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Knot/Anchor bend

|


text:
User:Magnus Manske/Mark Dalton images

Asking Mark W. Dalton for confirming licenses on several images formerly on his website, he replied on 2007-06-18:

Magnus,

Yes the University suddenly stopped allowing me to have the pages there. I sitll have the originals. Someone recently asked me, and is putting up the site again (I think in Australia).

I have the images and you are free to use them under any license you would like.

I also sent the protein-transport, Na-K-Pump, and protein-gates. I also have ER, cholesterol, golgi images.

I hope that helps.

Mark

title: User:Magnus Manske/Mark Dalton images


text:
User:Whiteknight/Curricula

Help:Textbook Standards

title: User:Whiteknight/Curricula


text:
A-level Mathematics/OCR/M2/Centre of Mass

The centre of mass of an object is the point through which its weight can be considered to act.

An object made of multiple parts, when a mean is taken of these from a fixed point, we can solve to find the centre of the objects mass.


text:
Arabic/Lesson 1

A Conversation
John is visiting an Arabic country when he is approached by a man named Abdullah. Abdullah greets John, who speaks very little Arabic, and a conversation begins.

عبدالله: السلام عليكم جون: وعليكم السلام. هل تتكلم إنجليزي؟ .عبد الله: لا، آسف جون: عفوا.

Transliteration
Abdul Allah: as-salaamu 'alaykum John: wa 'alaykum as-salaam. hal tatakallam ingileezee? Abdul Allah: laa, aasif. John: 'aHfwan. laa atkallam 'aHrabee kateer. ma' as-salaama. Adbul Allah: ma' as-salaama. furSa sa'iida.

Translation
Abdullah: Peace be on you. John: And on you be peace. Do you speak English? Abdullah: No, sorry. John: Don't mention it. I don't speak much Arabic. Goodbye. Adbullah: Goodbye. Happy to have met you.

title: Arabic/Lesson 1


text:
A Guide to Inkscape/Introduction

Scalable Vector Graphics

A vector object is composed of edit enabled path(s) and geometrical elements (nodes) based on two dimensional vector (x/y) coordinate values. This is very different from raster (or bitmap) images, which are composed from a grid (bitmap) of colored squares. Bitmaps are inherently "pixellated" when scaled larger (zoomed in), while vectors can be scaled to any size, and won't display any pixelized objects.

Some graphic editor programs, such as the GIMP, are known as bitmap or raster (photograph) editors. With Inkscape, you can create and edit vector graphics, and save them as Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) files or 'save as' over 25 graphic editor based file formats. SVG is an open standard designed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), that uses Extensible Markup Language (XML) to create vector based objects.

The Graphic User Interface (GUI)
When you load Inkscape you will see the main interface:

title: A Guide to Inkscape/Introduction


text:
A Guide to Inkscape/Making a Tomato

We want to make a juicy and plump tomato. Mouthwatering to look at, we really want to bring our product to life.

NOTE:In some versions SHIFT + CRTL + F is replaced by CRTL + ALT + F to access the attributes of an object

 * 1) Using the Circle tool draw a circle on the page
 * 2) With the circle selected, press SHIFT + CRTL + F to go to its attributes
 * 3) Change the Opacity to 80%
 * 4) Change the colour to a nice tomato red
 * 5) With the circle tool again, draw an ellipse, the same width as the tomato, below the tomato, this will be our shadow
 * 6) With the ellipse selected, press SHIFT + CRTL + F
 * 7) Change the blur to 20%, you can check the results as you move the slider.
 * 8) To add the leaves, select the calligraphy tool and change the colour to green
 * 9) In the calligraphy tool, change the Thinning attribute to 0.90
 * 10) Scribble the leaves on, if you aren't satisfied, delete them and try again.
 * 11) select the main body of the tomato and press CTRL + D, this will make an exact copy of the tomato directly over the original
 * 12) Select this new copy and press SHIFT + CRTL + F
 * 13) Change the Alpha channel to 50%
 * 14) Change the colour to white, you should now have a hazy looking tomato
 * 15) select the 'haze' and press CTRL + SHIFT + C, this will change the haze from being a circle to allow you to change its shape more vigorously
 * 16) With the Node editing tool select the haze and using the square handles crop the haze to look like a reflection. If you want to add more square handles to the haze just double click.
 * 17) Sit back and admire your work

title: A Guide to Inkscape/Making a Tomato


text: User:Jomegat/Sandbox/Knot

title: User:Jomegat/Sandbox/Knot