text:
Biodiversity of New Zealand

The biodiversity of New Zealand, a large island country located in the south-western Pacific Ocean, is varied and distinctive. The species of New Zealand accumulated over many millions of years as lineages evolved in the local circumstances. New Zealand's pre-human biodiversity exhibited high levels of species endemism, but has experienced episodes of biological turnover. Global extinction approximately 65 Ma (million years ago) resulted in the loss of fauna such as non-avian dinosaurs, pterosaurs and marine reptiles e.g. mosasaurs, elasmosaurs and plesiosaurs. The ancient fauna is not well known, but at least one species of terrestrial mammal existed in New Zealand around 19 Ma. For at least several million years before the arrival of human and commensal species, the islands had no terrestrial mammals except for bats and seals, the main component of the terrestrial fauna being insects and birds. As recently as the 14th century a component has been introduced by humans, including many terrestrial mammals.

New Zealand has developed a national Biodiversity Action Plan to address conservation of considerable numbers of threatened flora and fauna within New Zealand.

Evolution
The break-up of the supercontinent of Gondwana left the resulting continents and microcontinents with shared biological affinities. Zealandia (the continental crust from which New Zealand and New Caledonia later developed) began to move away from Antarctic Gondwana 85 Ma ago, the break being complete by 66 Ma ago. It has been moving northwards since then, changing both in relief and climate. About 23 million years ago New Zealand was mostly underwater. One estimate suggests just 18% of the present surface area remained above the water. However geological evidence does not rule out the possibility that it was entirely submerged, or at least restricted to small islands. Today about 93% of the Zealandian continent remains below the sea. Several elements of Gondwana biota are present in New Zealand today: predominantly plants, such as the podocarps and the southern beeches, but also a distinctive insect fauna, New Zealand's unusual frogs and the tuatara, as well as some of New Zealand's birds. It seems likely that some primitive mammals also were part of the original cargo. Whether or not any of these taxa are descendants of survivors of that ancient cargo remains unproven. Recent molecular evidence has shown that even the iconic Gondwanan plants the southern beeches (Nothofagus) arrived in New Zealand after separation of Zealandia from Gondwana. There is a high rate of interspecific and intraspecific hybridisation in New Zealand plants and animals.

The two sources of New Zealand's biodiversity following separation from Gondwana have been speciation and air- or sea-borne immigration. Most of these immigrants have arrived from Australia, and have provided the majority of New Zealand's birds and bats as well as some plant species (carried on the wind or inside the guts of birds). Some of these immigrants arrived long enough ago that their affinities to their Australian ancestors are uncertain; for example, the affinities of the unusual short-tailed bats (Mystacinidae) were unknown until fossils from the Miocene were found in Australia. Cyanoramphus parakeets are thought to have originated in New Caledonia and have been successful at reaching many islands in the region. The link between the two island groups also includes affinities between skink and gecko families.

Floral biodiversity
The history, climate and geology of New Zealand have created a great deal of diversity in New Zealand's vegetation types. The main two types of forest have been dominated by podocarps and southern beech. Podocarps (Podocarpaceae), an ancient evergreen gymnosperm family of trees, have changed little in the last 190 million years. Forests dominated by podocarps form a closed canopy with an understory of hardwoods and shrubs. The forests of southern beeches, from the genus Nothofagus, comprise a less diverse habitat, with the beeches of four species dominating the canopy and allowing a single understory. In the north of New Zealand the podocarp forests were dominated by the ancient giant kauri. These trees are amongst the largest in the world, holding the record for the greatest timber volume of any tree. The value of this was not lost on early European settlers, and most of these trees were felled.

The remaining vegetation types in New Zealand are grassland of grass and tussock, usually associated with the subalpine areas, and the low shrublands between grasslands and forests. These shrublands are dominated by daisies, which can become woody and 3 m high. New Zealand had a 2019 Forest Landscape Integrity Index mean score of 7.12/10, ranking it 55th globally out of 172 countries.

In addition to terrestrial plants, New Zealand is home to many species of algae. Many species of southern bull kelp are found along the coasts of the main islands, Chatham Islands and the Subantarctic Islands.

Faunal diversity
Until 2006, it was thought that no mammals, other than bats and marine mammals, had reached New Zealand before humans did. The discovery of a femur and mandibles of an extinct non-volant (non-flying) mammal in Otago, dated at 16–19 million years old, has changed the view of New Zealand's evolutionary history, as it strongly suggests that mammals had been part of New Zealand's fauna since the break-up of Gondwana. The fossil has been called SB mammal. It is not known when, or why, land mammals became extinct in New Zealand but there were none present on New Zealand for several million years before the arrival of humans.

The short-tailed bats (from the monotypic family Mystacinidae), first arrived in the Oligocene or before. These are unique among bats due to their terrestrial foraging habits; this has long been credited to the absence of competing terrestrial mammals, though the presence of the already terrestrial Icarops in the Miocene of Australia shows that their terrestriality evolved in the mainland, while Saint Bathans Fauna mystacine fossils co-existed with another terrestrial mammal, the Saint Bathans mammal. Some plants have evolved with the bats and are fertilised on the ground by the bats. The long-tailed bat (Chalinolobus tuberculatus), a more recent arrival, is relatively common. The Miocene Saint Bathans Fauna also preserves remains of a vesper bat and several incertae sedis species.

Birds comprise the most important part of New Zealand's vertebrate fauna. It is uncertain if many birds in New Zealand are descended from Gondwanan stock, as DNA evidence suggests that even the ratites (the kiwis and the moas) arrived after the split from Antarctica. Recent studies suggest that New Zealand wrens are Gondwanan descendants. DNA studies seem to indicate that the wrens are the most ancient of all passerines, splitting from the ancestral passerine stock at the time New Zealand become an isolated land mass. In the absence of mammals, birds diversified into the niches usually filled by mammals in other ecosystems.

The moas, of which there were eleven species, were large browsers, and were in turn the prey species of the giant Haast's eagle. Both the moas and the eagle became extinct shortly after the arrival of humans in New Zealand sometime around 1300 CE. It appears that human hunters exterminated the moa populations, which deprived the Haast's eagle of its primary food source, leading to the extinction of that species as well. New Zealand's emblematic kiwis fill the role of small foragers of the leaf-litter, and the enigmatic adzebill was a universal omnivore. The wattlebirds, Callaeidae, are a family endemic to New Zealand, but many other New Zealand birds show clear affinities to Australia, including the New Zealand pigeon and the New Zealand falcon, as well as various parrots, rails, waders, owls, and seabirds (albeit often with a New Zealand twist). Of the 245 species of birds from the greater New Zealand (the main islands along with the offshore islands, also including Norfolk Island), 174 were endemic, roughly 71%. Of these, about 32% of the genera were endemic.

No agamas or iguanas are recorded from New Zealand; lizards are represented by geckos and skinks, which arrived multiple times. The fossil record shows a highly diverse herpetofauna during the Miocene, with a mekosuchine crocodile and meiolaniid and pleurodire turtles being known from the Saint Bathans Fauna. The tuatara, reaching 60 cm (23.6 inches), is New Zealand's largest living reptile, a last remnant from the once diverse clade that was Sphenodontia. Frogs, which because of their intolerance for saltwater are assumed to have descended from ancestors that broke off from Gondwana, are one of the few exceptions to the rule that amphibians are never found on oceanic islands (another being the frogs of Fiji). New Zealand's few wholly freshwater fishes are derived from diadromous species.

New Zealand's terrestrial invertebrate community displays strong Gondwanan affinities, and has also diversified strongly, if unevenly. There are over a thousand species of snail, and many species of insect have become large and in many cases flightless, especially grasshoppers and beetles. There are, however, fewer than 12 species of ant. The most famous of New Zealand's insects, the wētā, are ground-living relatives of the crickets that often reach enormous proportions. Many endemic marine invertebrate species, particularly marine snails, have evolved in the seas surrounding New Zealand.

Endemism
New Zealand has a high number of endemic species, such as:
 * 80% of all vascular plants
 * 70% of all native terrestrial and freshwater birds
 * All bats
 * All native amphibians
 * All reptiles
 * 90% of freshwater fish
 * 90% of insects and molluscs
 * 75% of marine molluscs alone

Of New Zealand's estimated 20,000 fungi species, only about 4,500 are known. New Zealand also has two subspecies of endemic cetaceans, Hector's dolphin and its close relative Maui's dolphin.

Human impact

The arrival of humans has impacted the natural environment, posing a threat to native species and resulting in the extinction of several. This is predominantly because many species in New Zealand have evolved in the absence of mammalian predators for the last few million years (a situation known as ecological naivety), thus losing the responses needed to deal with such threats. Humans brought with them to New Zealand (intentionally or otherwise) a host of attendant species, starting with the Polynesian rat, and now including stoats, weasels, black rats, Norway rats, brushtailed possums, and feral cats and dogs, as well as herbivores such as deer, wallabies and tahr (a wild goat species from the Himalayas), which detrimentally affect native vegetation.

The date of arrival of the first human settlers (the antecedents of the Māori) in New Zealand is given as around 1300 CE, and evidence suggests that Polynesian rats seemed to have arrived at a similar date. Their arrival set off a first wave of extinctions, eliminating smaller defenceless ground nesting birds such as the New Zealand owlet-nightjar. A second wave of extinctions was triggered by the arrival of the Māori, who hunted many of the larger species, such as the moa, adzebill and several large ducks and geese, for food. The Haast's eagle and Eyles's harrier are thought to have gone extinct due to the loss of their food source. A third wave of extinction began with the arrival of European settlers, who brought with them numerous new mammal species, particularly the predatory domestic cat, and initiated more habitat modification. In all, over 50% of New Zealand's bird species are considered extinct, along with a species of bat (the New Zealand greater short-tailed bat), several frogs (only four frog types remain), a freshwater fish (the New Zealand greyling), skinks, and geckos.

In some instances, the extinction of New Zealand's native fauna has brought about a natural colonisation from Australia. In the case of the silvereye, which colonised New Zealand in the 19th century, it had no relative in New Zealand's original fauna and is now restricted to newer man-made niches. In the case of the black swan (which was originally thought to have been introduced by humans but is now suspected to have self-introduced), the invading species re-occupied part of its former range (the extinct New Zealand swan is now believed to be a subspecies of the black swan). The arrival of the pūkeko and the swamp harrier is more interesting, mirroring the arrival of related species in the past, before they evolved into the takahē and the Eyles's harrier. Once these specialised birds declined and (in the case of the harrier) became extinct, their niches were available and colonisation could occur again.

Management
The New Zealand government, through the Department of Conservation, works aggressively to protect what remains of New Zealand's biological heritage. It has pioneered work on island restoration where offshore islands are systematically cleared of introduced species such as goats, feral cats and rats. This then allows the re-introduction of native species that can hopefully flourish in the absence of non-native predators and competitors. The longest running project of this type is on Cuvier Island, but other islands are also being used such as Tiritiri Matangi and Mangere Island. Establishment of conservation areas is not restricted to islands however and several ecological islands have been established on the New Zealand mainland which are isolated by the use of pest-exclusion fences.

title: Biodiversity of New Zealand


text:
Grumman American AA-1

The Grumman American AA-1 series is a family of light, two-seat aircraft. The family includes the original American Aviation AA-1 Yankee and AA-1A Trainer along with the TR2. The TR2 has a cruise prop and the trainer has a climb prop. Typically the TR2 came with more navigation instruments and of course was better for cross country flying because of her speed and lower fuel consumption for equal distances. Flight instructors warned they could go into flat spins and this was substantiated by the cockpit stickers that stated ”SPINS PROHIBITED". The Grumman American AA-1B Trainer and TR-2, plus the Gulfstream American AA-1C Lynx and T-Cat'''.

Development history
The Yankee was originally designed in 1962 by Jim Bede as the BD-1 and was intended to be sold as a kit-built aircraft. Bede decided to certify the design under the then-new FAR Part 23 rules and offer it as a completed aircraft. No BD-1 kits were ever sold.

The prototype first flew on July 11, 1963, and featured folding wings for trailering and ease of storage. Bede formed a company, Bede Aviation Corporation, based in Cleveland, Ohio, to produce the aircraft, but the BD-1 never entered production as a certified aircraft. At that time, the FAA was hesitant to certify a light aircraft with folding wings. The certification process was complex and expensive, and disagreements arose between Bede and the other shareholders. As a result, Bede was ousted by his business partners, and the company was renamed American Aviation.

AA-1 Yankee Clipper
American's engineers reworked the wing to a non-folding design, easing FAR Part 23 certification. Other changes included adding extended wing tips to improve rate-of-climb, an anti-servo tab on the elevator along with a centering spring system to increase longitudinal stability and stall strips to improve handling during a stall. The company designated the redesigned aircraft the AA-1 Yankee Clipper.

The AA-1 was certified under FAR Part 23 on August 29, 1967, with the first production AA-1 flying on May 30, 1968. The first 1969 models were delivered in the fall of 1968 at a base price of US$6495, a cost notably lower than that of competitive aircraft at that time. American Aviation built 459 examples of the AA-1 Yankee Clipper between 1969 and 1971 at their factory in Cleveland, Ohio.

AA-1A Trainer
In 1971, American Aviation modified the NACA 64-415 airfoil used on the AA-1's wing, creating the AA-1A Trainer. The recontoured leading edge produced softer stall characteristics and permitted lower approach speeds. While this did tame the AA-1's sharp stall, it also reduced the cruise speed compared to the original AA-1 by 10 mph. First flight was on March 25, 1970, and 470 AA-1As were built in 1971–72.

AA-1B Trainer and TR-2
Grumman bought American Aviation in 1971, renaming it Grumman American Aviation, and beginning in late 1972 sold the 1973 model year design as the Grumman American AA-1B Trainer for school use. The variant designed for the personal-use market was called the TR-2 and it featured a standard radio and trim package. The AA-1B was produced until 1976. 680 AA-1Bs were produced.

All the AA-1s, AA-1As and AA-1Bs were powered by the Lycoming O-235-C2C low-compression engine designed for 80/87 avgas, which produced 108 hp.

AA-1C Lynx and T-Cat
The Grumman light aircraft line was then acquired by Gulfstream Aerospace in 1977 who formed it into their light aircraft division, Gulfstream American, in Savannah, Georgia. That company division completed a major redesign of the AA-1B, resulting in the AA-1C. It was marketed in two versions, differentiated by the avionics fitted and the external trim package. The Lynx was targeted at private owners while the T-Cat was the flying school trainer. These names were chosen to position the aircraft in the Gulfstream American line which, at that time featured the Cheetah, Tiger and the Cougar.

The AA-1C received a new larger horizontal tail and other significant improvements, including a 115 hp Lycoming O-235-L2C high-compression engine designed for 100LL fuel, which brought the cruise speed back up to that of the original 108 hp Yankee. 211 AA-1Cs were produced in 1977 and 1978.

The last AA-1C was produced by Gulfstream American in 1978. Overall, 1820 AA-1 family aircraft were built between 1969 and 1978.

The type certificate for the AA-1 family of aircraft is currently held by True Flight Holdings LLC who bought the assets of Tiger Aircraft on August 2, 2007.

Features
All models of the AA-1 accommodate two people in side-by-side seating under a sliding canopy and are noted for their exceptionally light handling. The Yankee and its four-seater siblings, the AA-5 series, feature a unique bonded aluminum honeycomb fuselage and bonded wings that eliminate the need for rivets without sacrificing strength. The wide-track main landing gear struts are laminated fiberglass for shock absorption, marketed as the "Face Saver" design by American Aviation.

The Yankee was originally designed to minimize the number of airframe parts used, with the aim of simplifying production and saving money. As a result of this philosophy, many parts were interchangeable. Due to the use of a non-tapered tubular spar, which doubled as the fuel tank, and the lack of wing washout, the wings could be exchanged left and right. The fin and horizontal stabilizers were interchangeable, as were the rudder and the elevators. The ailerons and flaps were similarly the same part. While it did succeed in making production easier, this design philosophy produced many aerodynamic compromises in the design. For instance, because the flaps were the same part as the ailerons they were too small to be effective as flaps. The lack of wing washout, necessitated by the wing interchangeability requirement, meant that stall strips had to be installed to produce acceptable stall characteristics for certification. Over time this philosophy of compromising the aerodynamics in favour of a minimized parts count was abandoned. For example, the redesign of the AA-1B into the AA-1C by Gulfstream involved wider-span elevators and horizontal stabilizers that produced better longitudinal stability, but were no longer interchangeable with the rudder and fin.

Powered by the same 108 hp Lycoming O-235 engine as the Cessna 152, the original Yankee cruises twenty percent faster thanks to the cleaner wing and better aerodynamics.

Safety record
The original American Aviation AA-1 Yankee developed a poor reputation for safety in its first years of production (1969–71). The aircraft was designed purely to fill the role of a personal transportation and touring aircraft and not a trainer, but many of the early production models were purchased by flying schools. The appeal of the AA-1 to schools was obvious – compared to the competition, the AA-1 was faster, cost less to purchase and maintain and, most importantly, had more student-appeal with its sliding canopy and fighter-like looks.

Many of the early school accidents were related to spin-training. Once the AA-1 entered a fully developed spin and exceeded three turns, it was usually not recoverable. The AA-1 had been spin-tested as part of its certification, but in 1973 the FAA issued Airworthiness Directive 73-13-07 ordering the aircraft placarded against spins.

The remaining accidents were generally attributed to the AA-1's short endurance (3.3 hours), inability to use short grass strips and high approach speeds (85–90 mph). These were all different from the other school aircraft in use in that era and took some adaptation by instructors and students alike.

Today most of the AA-1s, AA-1As, Bs and Cs are in private hands. If the pilot is properly trained on the aircraft and stays within its limitations, data show that it is as safe as any other light aircraft.

Modifications
Some AA-1s have had their original engines replaced with larger 150 or 160 hp engines that further increase performance. Other popular modifications include the addition of a dorsal strake on earlier model AA-1s to improve yaw stability or the addition of a transparent red rudder cap to fair the flashing beacon for reduced drag. Some AA-1s have been converted to taildragger configuration.

Variants

 * AA-1 Yankee
 * 1968 – Production version developed from the Bede BD-1 with a 108hp Lycoming O-235-C2C engine, 461 built.

 * AA-1A Trainer
 * 1971 – Dual-control trainer version with modified wing aerofoil, 470 built.

 * AA-1B Trainer/Tr-2
 * 1972 – Development of the AA-1A with an increase in useful load, also sold as the Tr-2 touring model, 680 built.

 * AA-1C T-Cat/Lynx
 * 1976 – AA-1B with a 115hp Lycoming O-235-L2C engine, AA-5 elevators and modified engine mount, marketed as the T-Cat as trainer replacement for the Trainer and as the Lynx tourer to replace the Tr-2, 211 built.

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

title: Grumman American AA-1


text: User talk:83.109.131.117

title: User talk:83.109.131.117


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightshift Magazine

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 22:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Nightshift Magazine
Tagged with since February. Just says, "A paper magazine run by Ronan Munro. Listings and reviews of Oxford's music." Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * They appear to be web-based, with a web site at http://nightshift.oxfordmusic.net/ . I've googled a number of artists quoting Nightshift reviews, so I'm uncertain how notable they are. Pass. — RJH 18:46, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: Category:Cameroonian styles of music

title: Category:Cameroonian styles of music


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Servant of the shrub

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Servant of the shrub
"Delete as vanity page for nn RPG guild. FreplySpang (talk) 05:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete nonsense --DuKot 05:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity --nixie 07:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * RPG groups aren't notable. An article about a mere bug in the game would be cruft.Delete Mgm|(talk) 10:35, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Karl Rove. Then delete. Jonathunder 04:24, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text: Category:Cameroonian musicians

title: Category:Cameroonian musicians


text:
User talk:TonyMarvin

 'ATTENTION: Due to the abuse of power by User:SlimVirgin (an administrator who contributes very little to Wikipedia excepting blocking editors with a non far-left perspective) I will not be editing any more. Because of SlimVirgin's misconduct articles like Ward Churchill and probably many more will continue to be the sick joke they have become marked by vicious edit warring and vandalism.'

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Alai 05:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

making progress?
It seems the changes you made on Ward Churchill/Temp are just you going back to your version with added POV? You said "making progress" but you overwrote the minor reorg change I made, why? It created a new section for other statements and moved a plagiarism charge to the proper section. Your version is rather POV I think. zen master   T  01:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For someone who appears to have been contributing for only a couple of days, you certainly have a precocious facility for determining what neutrality is here. That Churchill's classmates don't recall him mentioning his ethnic background proves just one thing: that the don't recall him mentioning his ethnic background, period. -- Viajero 10:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Let me get this clear: we are allowed to state, for example, that terrorists commit terrorists acts, but we are not allowed to say that states engage in oppression and subjugation? Wow. And you claim I have an agenda? -- Viajero 10:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Is the existence and nature of COINTRELPRO debated? Is there any doubt that the activities directed against AIM, BPPs and others took place? Do serious historians question this? -- Viajero 11:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Was your last message intended to be ironical? You may be serious, but I am having trouble taking you seriously. By your own admission, you know zilch about Indian affairs and zilch about Ward Churchill. Before continuing to edit Ward Churchill, how about doing your homework? Read a couple of Churchill's earlier works, before he became such a loony figure. And take a look at COINTELPRO. -- Viajero 12:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Play fair! I reverted because you violated the attempt at consensus in a rude, aggressive, and opinionated way. Ironic of you to lecture me on manners under the circumstances. The page was locked to make people discuss controversial changes. It was unlocked with the warning to play fair. You violated this attempt at civil dialog immediately.--Cberlet 03:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Same old content
If you don't make a case for it on the talk page don't be surprised if your same old edits are reverted in the future. For a comparison on the sorts of things generally put in an intro section note how there is no mention of controversy in the intro section of the Tom Delay article. zen master   T  02:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If you don't disagree with Cberlet does that mean you are ok with going back to his "compromise" version? zen master   T  05:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Did you happen to notice that the "compromise" version Cberlet came up with was the version I reverted to plus minor tweaks? i.e. very far from your current version? Your version is hopelessly POV and lacks all context nor good prose. zen master    T  05:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Nope, that's not better. The point of the Delay intro comparison is that there is no mention of controversy, certainly not focusing one a quotation without the full context.  Cberlet's or Kelly Martin's version is still vastly prfered.  You know you shouldn't disrupt wikipedia users to illustrate a point either?  zen master    T  05:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill
I've looked and it seems like a pretty normal content dispute. Sort it out on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your claim that your version is a "consensus" version lacks all factual basis. You are requested to respect the process in place and refrain from editing the main page. If you cannot do so, I will be forced to request the article protected again. Kelly Martin 16:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Hi Tony, you've been reported for 3RR violation at Ward Churchill. While the diffs don't show a strict violation, they do show you sailing close to the wind. This is just to let you know that if you continue to revert, you may be blocked from editing for 24 hours. Try to reach a consensus for your preferred version on the talk page. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've deleted your 3RR-violation report of Viajero as the links you provided link only to the article and not to specify edits. I also looked at the history and Viajero has not violated 3RR. If you want to resubmit your report, please follow the format on the page and supply diffs, plus time and date of each revert. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk)  19:40, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your reply. If you go to WP:AN/3RR and look at what other people have done, you'll get the hang of the format. The key thing is to supply the diffs for the edits you're complaining of. This means supplying the exact link to the edit; for example, the diff for the edit you made to my talk page is here . Instead of doing that, you'd had linked to the article itself, which doesn't help the admins to see the reverts you're complaining of. To get the diff, either go to user contributions for the person you're complaining about, and click on "diff" for the edits you want to link to, or else go to the article's history, highlight the two edits you want to compare, and click on "compare selected versions." If you go to the WP:AN/3RR and study it, you'll soon come to see how it's done. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:53, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

(copied from Kelly Martin's talkpage)Kelly, I think you're perilously close to breaking the 3RR. You're definitely breaking the spirit, if not the letter. I know it's frustrating to be up against a POV warrior like Tony. Here's what I suggest. We get an agreement on the talk page of what is disputed. We make a list of disputed items. We state that we will consider it a revert to change any one of those items. This is what a revert really should be considered. Not just the same fact three times, but anything in the article. But let's make a list so that we know what's at stake and can point to the list when, inevitably, items on it are reverted. Then you, I and Viajero revert Tony once each in turn. This will take the heat out of it because we are online at different times. Tony will either have to talk or breach the 3RR and be blocked. I am willing to include his viewpoint if he can substantiate it but relentless POV pushing doesn't help this article or this encyclopaedia. Let me know what you think. (copied to Viajero and TonyMarvin's talkpages)Grace Note 23:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Tony, you have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for 3RR violation, edit warring, and suspicion of sockpuppetry at Ward Churchill. If you feel this block is unfair, you're welcome to e-mail me using the "e-mail this user" function on my user page, and I will get straight back to you. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:47, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi again Tony, I unblocked your account 12 hours early. I hope you'll continue to make a useful contribution. If you stick to the policies, write in a disinterested tone, and supply references for any contentious edits, then you shouldn't find yourself being reverted so often. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:TonyMarvin


text:
Jiminy Glick

Jiminy Glick is a fictional character created and portrayed by Martin Short in the TV series Primetime Glick (2001–2003), the subsequent 2004 film Jiminy Glick in Lalawood, and Short's Broadway show Martin Short: Fame Becomes Me. He began as a recurring character on The Martin Short Show. When that show was canceled, he was spun off into his own series, Primetime Glick, which ran for three seasons.

Short has cited Skip E. Lowe as the inspiration for Jiminy Glick.

Fictional biography
Born Malcolm Glickman on March 12, 1948, in Akron, Ohio (though he has claimed to have been born in Omaha, Nebraska and Baton Rouge, Louisiana), Jiminy Glick was the middle child of 10 children of Omar and Isabella Glickman. Glick, who describes himself as a Tibetan-American, was often a loner and was regularly made fun of for his obesity at an early age. He was also very sickly until he was 13, when doctors discovered that he had a small Tonka truck stuck in his duodenum. As a child, while riding his bike and listening to the song "Michael Row the Boat Ashore", he lost his virginity when he fell on the "boy bar", He has said he never liked the name Malcolm and was given the nickname "Jiminy" as crickets laid eggs in his anus. But Glick also told Larry David that Jiminy is his real name, given to him because his parents "were from the Baháʼí Faith". In an interview with Ben Stiller, he asserted that he and his wife were Buddhists.

After graduating from Gale Gordon High School, and continuing on to DeVry Institute of Technology and the University of Wisconsin, his life changed forever when the play Forty Carats, starring Lana Turner, came to town. He was asked to join the show and traveled to Tulsa, Oklahoma, where he played "Onlooker Number Two", which he said was "like a dream!" After his short stage acting career and a performance as the leper in the film Papillon, Glick became Charles Bronson's personal assistant for five years during the 1970s. He had planned on working for Robert Vaughn, but according to Glick, he "didn't pay".

Bronson was very cruel to Glick and at one point threw him off his boat, mistaking him for Sebastian Cabot. Glick was picked up in a boat by George Maharis, of the TV show Route 66, and his cousin, Leon Maharis. Leon asked Glick if he wanted to work with him at Chasen's in Beverly Hills, California, as a busboy. Glick eagerly accepted the offer. There he ran into numerous Hollywood celebrities, such as Justin Timberlake, Madonna, Britney Spears, James Dean, and Charlton Heston. Then, one day, while catering a party at Roddy McDowall's house, George Schlatter from Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In offered Glick a pilot episode deal for a daytime talk show. Glick accepted and started at the Beverly Garland Motel (as opposed to the Beverly-Garland Hotel). And, Glick has said, "that's how it all started." The daytime talk show was canceled when Beverly Garland herself came downstairs and, lacking sleep and thoroughly intoxicated, shouted to Glick and his crew to "get the hell out!" Later in his career, Glick moved to prime time.

In 1974, Glick worked as Telly Savalas's personal assistant. Savalas was mean, so Glick embezzled $85,000 from him. He was caught on his way to Ecuador and served a four-month hard labor sentence in Mississippi.

Glick is married to a heavily medicated, alcoholic Southern woman named Dixie, portrayed by Saturday Night Live and Designing Women veteran Jan Hooks. Together they have "four wonderfully strapping young boys": Morgan, Mason, Matthew, and Modine (named for actors Morgan Mason and Matthew Modine). Morgan and Mason are teenaged twins and Matthew and Modine are 10-year-old twins; they were actually triplets but he sent away the third one because "two was so much already." The Glick family resides in Tarzana, California.

Dennis Miller has described Glick's life as "one big CliffsNote missing a page."

Jiminy is also an avid pole vaulter, claiming that he did it in college and occasionally pole vaults with his wife.

Glick was once given 400 mutton patties by Ted Nugent for Christmas.

During an interview with Alec Baldwin, Glick declared himself a Whig.

On The Martin Short Show
In the show, Glick is a famous television interviewer who has been around Hollywood for a long time. Despite this, he remains laughably ignorant of pop culture and most entertainment news, though he considers himself just the opposite. For example, he often cites another celebrity with whom the interviewee apparently shares a birthday (but in reality does not) and ask how it makes them "feel". His interviews with stars are characterized by his patronizing attitude, frequent bizarre questions about obscure matters, awkward body language, and ultimately turning the subject matter to himself. He is extremely forgetful, and takes ginkgo biloba as a memory aid (although, as he often points out, the catch twenty-one [a play on words] is that he doesn't remember to take it). Glick is also very overweight, and during interviews will sometimes aggressively stuff his face with junk food (always present on the table on set) at a moment's notice. Glick occasionally offers food to his guests, but if they reach for it without being offered, he snatches it away, growling, "No! All for me!" On top of his many other eccentricities, Glick has an unforgettably peculiar voice, shifting within a single sentence from a high, effeminate whine to a deep growl.

In Primetime Glick
On the series, Glick is joined by long-suffering, heavily made-up announcer and bandleader Adrian Van Voorhees (Michael McKean), who resembles Lawrence Welk. Adrian plays a full classical harp, leading a band of scraggly-looking immigrants that does a very poor job of synching up their "performance" with the music. While Adrian generally attempts to conduct himself in a professional manner, he occasionally loses his patience with Glick's idiocy and constant, usually unintentional put-downs. He can sometimes be heard muttering disgustedly about Glick ("You are fat...sloppy fat") but Glick remains blissfully unaware of Adrian's hostility.

Prior to his role on Primetime Glick, Adrian had been admiring Glick from afar for many years, but had been laid up with a skin condition, putting him out of work. He then began to send Glick fan mail and finally asked him for a job saying, "I think you need a harp." Glick, thinking Adrian had written "tarp", called Adrian as he was doing some work on his pool at the time. While awaiting Glick's response, Adrian boarded the cruise ship S.S.S. Statadam and conducted its band. Glick finally met up with him upon the ship's return, exclaiming in an interview, "the next thing you know, Van Vorhees is part of the Glick world."

Glick is also often assailed by Short's long-running, Bette Davis-esque drag character, Miss Gathercole, a bitter, ancient woman who is a regular in Glick's studio audience (alongside her increasingly short-tempered nurse) and freely offers commentary on Glick's various failings and her own latest adventures. It was also said that another of Short's long-running characters, elderly vaudevillian Irving Cohen was the executive producer of Glick's primetime show. The mention was only for the span of a single episode where Cohen suffers from a heart attack and is presumed dead, with Glick offering video tributes to him until he calls the studio to say he's okay.

In addition to the interviews, the show also featured many Second City TV-like parody commercials and Glick reading storybook tales to a group of young children, appropriately called Lalawood Fables. These stories were usually Hollywood Babylon-like tales of Tinseltown degradation, acted out by puppets. Most of his stories are lost on his young audience. The show sometimes had a more fanciful side, as when the puppets would apparently come to life; once Glick and Jason Alexander spent too long in a steamroom and emerged dwarf-sized, and once Glick accidentally crushed Robert Downey Jr., also in the steamroom.

Other appearances
Glick is the main character in the feature film Jiminy Glick in Lalawood.

In Martin Short: Fame Becomes Me, Glick interviews (through complete improvisation) an audience volunteer tasked to become the show's "new star" after Martin Short is struck by lightning (a ploy to allow Short enough time to don the Jiminy Glick make-up).

Martin Short played the character in an episode of MADtv. An interactive, constantly updated website kept by "Jiminy Glick" Myspace is filled with photos, video clips, commentary, blogs and postings from over 9,320 friends of Jiminy Glick...and Martin Short.

Short also portrayed the character for a week on the Whoopi Goldberg-produced era of Hollywood Squares, during a College Tournament in 2001; for the tournament finals he filled in as center square; other celebrities on that panel had also been center square, as Whoopi was out sick that week.

Glick also made an appearance on the April 16, 2005 episode of Saturday Night Live hosted by Tom Brady. He appeared as a guest on the Weekend Update segment plugging a fictitious "Best of Jiminy Glick" DVD, including a clip of Glick interviewing SNL creator Lorne Michaels (portrayed by Will Forte) supposedly shot in the 1970s. Glick then forcibly kisses Update anchor Tina Fey as the segment ends.

Glick appears in Maya & Marty interviewing celebrities such as Larry David, Kevin Hart, Jerry Seinfeld and Ricky Gervais.

On the April 28, 2017 episode of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Glick interviewed Donald Trump (portrayed by Jimmy Fallon) about his first 100 days in office.

In 2024, Glick resurfaced on the talk-show circuit. On the June 21, 2024, episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, he interviewed Maher. He also guest-hosted Jimmy Kimmel Live!, usurping guest host Martin Short's time on the show. Short was filling in for the vacationing Kimmel. Among those Glick interviewed were Bill Hader, Melissa McCarthy, Sean Hayes, and Nick Kroll.

title: Jiminy Glick


text:
European route E24

The European route E24 is part of the United Nations international E-road network. It runs for 254 km from Birmingham to Ipswich.

Route
The route of the E24 begins at the E5 near Birmingham, where the M6 Toll merges with the M6 and the E5 switches from the M6 Toll to the M42. The E24 heads east on the M6 to its end at the M1 (E13), and continues past the junction onto the A14. The E24 crosses the E15 (A1) at Huntingdon, and continues east along the A14 past Cambridge to the A12 at Ipswich, where the E24 route ends.

The E30, which follows the A12 and A1214 from London to Ipswich, and then the A14 from Ipswich to the port of Felixstowe, forms a continuation of the route to the North Sea.

Lack of signage
Lying completely within the United Kingdom (like the E13 and E32), no part of the E24 is signed as such, the UK authorities never having implemented the provisions for the indication of European route numbers contained in annex 3 of the 1950 Declaration on the Construction of Main International Traffic Arteries signed in Geneva by Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom (later joined by 18 other countries) on 16 September 1950.

title: European route E24


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nishan de Mel

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:17, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nishan de Mel
Tagged with since February. The only things that it says about this Harvard economist is that he recently gave a series of important lectures on the topic of healthcare in developing countries, and that "in light of the recent Tsunami disaster, it would appear his work will take on increased importance over the next few years." Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Megan1967 08:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the article was wrong - he's a lecturer at Oxford, not Harvard (where he got his BA). But having looked at all these minor actors and sportspeople get keeps on Wikipedia, I have to say I'm now going to employ the same rule to academics as we do to actors - verifiably employed by an important university, so keep.  Average Earthman 13:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Does your rule have a minimum rank, or does any academic qualify? Kappa 14:42, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So teaching assistants should have articles? What about the janitorial staff?  Delete, article does not establish notablity. RickK 20:16, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe only the "academic" janitorial staff, like that guy in the movie. Kappa 20:55, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the bloody minded refusal to grasp the point. Since when is a cleaner an academic? He's a lecturer, for a top department in a top university. You want an arbitrary limit, fine, say it should be a university that could be considered to be in the world's top 50 . Average Earthman 17:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You might want to start filling out List of Professors. RickK 20:55, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I see you've edited the Madonna article recently, so I'll be looking forward to your complete and comprehensive List of entertainers then. Average Earthman 16:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No evidence that he exceeds the "average professor" test. Delete unless further evidence is presented.  (The argument that we set the bar too low for minor actors and sportspeople is no reason to propogate the mistake.)  Rossami (talk) 03:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, arguably being employed as a lecturer at Oxford University is a bit of a hint you're not just average. Average Earthman 17:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not really. Every organization has average performers even when average is measured against the greater population.  With very very few exceptions, the standard deviation across individuals is much greater than the difference between the population means.  Rossami (talk)
 * Keep per Average Earthman's proposed standard. Kappa 21:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC) Delete per Uppland's findings below. Kappa 05:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am usually all for keeping academics, but the only thing this guy has written that I can find – assuming it is the same person – is a 2002 Oxford M.Phil. thesis, Hyperbolic discounting and pensions, which I found in the OU library catalogue. He doesn't even seem to have finished his doctorate. / Uppland 20:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that research, I've changed my vote. Kappa 05:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am Nishan de Mel. I've stumbled apon this page and am somewhat amused, I have no idea how this page came to be created. The picture associated with the page is certainly not my picture even though the information contained in it is basically accurate. The argument for my importance seems very dubious; and all the criticisms except the one which claims I have written almost nothing, seem rather well directed. Please feel free to write to me at: nishan.demel@economics.oxford.ac.uk for verification, and any other information. I myself do not think that I warrant a listing in Wikipedia.

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
User talk:Kevin Judson

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Alai 05:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Facebook link on Codsall High
90.194.129.174 23:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC) why did you edit the codsall high page and remove the mr chubb link?
 * Thanks for your attempt to extend the article, however, it's important to note what wikipedia is and is not. Facebook is unlikely to offer an authoritative coverage of a subject and thus is generally unsuitable to link to (which is why such links can be seen as advertising or spamming).  Contributions to the encyclopedia should (as I mentioned on the talk page) also be notable.  Your addition, even without the external link, would probably not pass this test since it is unlikely to be relevant or of interest to outsiders.  You should be careful when editing articles on topics that directly concern you.  (If, however, you can argue that it is worthy of inclusion, feel free to discuss it with other editors.) Kevin Judson 02:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Officilly"
See talk:Imperial College London, was but a passing thought that I changed it in the first place though, I was really there to tidy up the date linking. David Underdown 10:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Body Sensor Networks"
Hi friend, I made some changes to your article being written on BSN. I look forward to get your assistance in updating current information about BSN. Actually I request you to redirect your article to a detailed article on BSN. Just type Body Sensor Networks or BSN and you will get the detailed article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sanajcs (talk • contribs).
 * Hey. I'm afraid I haven't yet had a chance to look at the article – I'll put it on my to-do list!  So the Body Sensor Networks article shouldn't really have been started and should have redirected to Body sensor network.  I think I specifically chose this because it's more consistent with other titles like Wireless sensor network.  If you've no objections, I might do this in the next day or two.  Cheers, Kevin Judson 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-register
 Hello, ! You are receiving this notice because the WikiProject BBC is attempting to determine which members are still active. As a result of this all people on the active members list are being asked to re-register.

To re-register please see WikiProject BBC/Re-Registration.

If you do not re-register within 15 days of receiving this notice your name will be removed from the active members list and put onto the inactive members list (if for any reason you were unable to reply to this notice in time, you can just move your name back).

Boy1jhn 14:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Meetup/London 12

Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

King's School, Ely
Hi there,

The page King's School, Ely has been up for Good article nomination for a while. You are welcome to take a look, recommend or make any changes, or review the nomination. Many thanks! rocketman89 (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser
Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 20:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Coordinators and help needed
Hi, if you are active on Wikipedia and are still interested in helping out with urgent tasks on our large Schools Project, please let us know here. We look forward to hearing from you. Sent to project members 13:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC). You can opt of messages here.

title: User talk:Kevin Judson


text:
Talk:Phasor

Phasor addition
The amplitude of the phasor addition result should be stated unambiguously - that is the positive square-root of the right-hand side. And the phase-shift of the phasor addition result should not make use of arctan but of atan2 to get the quadrant right:

A_3 = \sqrt{(A_1 \cos\theta_1 + A_2 \cos \theta_2)^2 + (A_1 \sin\theta_1 + A_2 \sin\theta_2)^2}, $$

\theta_3 = \operatorname{atan2} \left( A_1 \sin\theta_1 + A_2 \sin\theta_2, A_1 \cos\theta_1 + A_2 \cos\theta_2 \right) $$

Untitled
Phasors are used for a lot more than just AC circuit analysis. I think actually the exact definition may differ depending on the field you are worrying about, such as the Signal Processing, where phasors most definitely do have a frequency. This is probably the best general definition of this mathematical tool:
 * i wrote this page to fill a link before i had a particularlly solid understanding of phasors myself. At some point i need to rewrite this article but thats quite a bit of work. Plugwash 13:52, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Phasor multiplication
Is this ever used in regular contexts besides power calculations? I imagine it is. - Omegatron 21:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, now that I think of it, I'm pretty sure I remember rotating phasor diagrams in communications classes for modulation stuff. - Omegatron 21:27, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Here is the rule:

 * $$(M_1 \angle \phi_1)\cdot (M_2 \angle \phi_2) = (M_1 \cdot M_2) \angle {(\phi_1+\phi_2)}\,$$

Doesn't that imply:

 * $$M_1\cdot \cos(\omega t + \phi_1) \cdot M_2\cdot \cos(\omega t + \phi_2) \ \stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{=}\ M_1\cdot M_2\cdot \cos(\omega t + \phi_1+\phi_2) \,$$

which is not true. What am I missing?

--Bob K 09:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Bo

b, consider that a phasor is just the amplitude of the frequency domain representation of the sinusoid. Multiplying two phasors is essentially multiplication in the frequency domain which results in convolution, not multiplication, in the time domain. That's why we say that 'the product (or ratio) of two phasors is not itself a phasor'. Alfred Centauri 13:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but the same source provides this definition :

 * $$M \angle \phi = M \cos (t\omega + \phi)\,$$

which simply means to me that $$M \angle \phi \,$$ is a shorthand notation. The "equals" sign should mean we can directly substitute the full mathematical notation for the shorthand:

 * $$(M_1 \angle \phi_1)\cdot (M_2 \angle \phi_2) \,$$    is just a shorthand for     $$M_1\cdot \cos(\omega t + \phi_1) \cdot M_2\cdot \cos(\omega t + \phi_2)$$

Similarly,

 * $$(M_1 \cdot M_2) \angle {(\phi_1+\phi_2)}\,$$    means     $$\ M_1\cdot M_2\cdot \cos(\omega t + \phi_1+\phi_2)\,$$

I'm just doing the obvious application of the definition. If you still disagree, I would appreciate it if someone would show a trigonometric example (without phasors) of multiplication, and then illustrate how phasors simplify the math and arrive at the same answer, as the article implies, or did before I removed this statement:

 * "Noting that a trigonometric function can be represented as the real component of a complex quantity, it is efficacious to perform the required mathematical operations upon the complex quantity and, at the very end, take its real component to produce the desired answer."

FWIW, what we seem to be talking about here is the analytic representation of a signal, $$s_a(t)\,$$. The analytic representations of $$\cos(\omega_1 t)\,$$  and  $$\cos(\omega_2 t)\,$$  are  $$e^{j\omega_1 t}\,$$  and  $$e^{j\omega_2 t}.\,$$  And the product of the analytic signals is  $$e^{j(\omega_1 + \omega_2) t},\,$$  which represents the real signal:  $$\cos((\omega_1 + \omega_2) t),\,$$  which is not the product of   $$\cos(\omega_1 t)\,$$  and  $$\cos(\omega_2 t).\,$$  Therefore we have to be careful not to mislead people (and ourselves) about the multiplication of analytic signals. And I think the same goes for phasors. We really need an example of the multiplication property in action. When and why would someone want to use it?

--Bob K 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I just took a look at the source link and it's quite confused. As you are probably aware, using phasors in AC circuit analysis amounts to 'pretending' that the excitations are of the form $$A e^{j(\omega_0 t + \phi)}$$ (which is consistent with your 'FWIW' statements).  Under this pretense, the ratio of the voltage and current associated with a circuit element is a constant complex number (no time dependence):

 * $$v(t) = A_v e^{j(\omega_0 t + \phi_v)}$$

 * $$i(t) = A_i e^{j(\omega_0 t + \phi_i)}$$

 * $$\frac{v(t)}{i(t)} = \frac{A_v}{A_i} e^{j(\phi_v - \phi_i)}$$

 * But, this is just the impedance of the circuit element and is the result we get by taking the ratio of the phasor voltage and current associated with the circuit element. Clearly, the impedance is not associated with a time function and thus, is not a phasor.

 * The product of the voltage and the complex conjugate current associated with a circuit element is also a constant complex number:

 * $$v(t) \cdot i^*(t) = A_v A_i e^{j(\phi_v - \phi_i)} \,$$

 * But, this is just the complex power associated with the circuit element and is the result we get by multiplying the phasor voltage and conjugate phasor current associated with a circuit element. And, as with impedance, the complex power is not associated with a time function and thus, is not a phasor.  Alfred Centauri 15:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Circuit_Theory/Phasor_Arithmetic is "confused", then I am inclined to remove the link to it, because I don't know how to fix it. But that link was intended to clarify this statement:

 * "As with other complex quantities the exponential (polar) form, A•ej θ, simplifies multiplication and division, while the Cartesian (rectangular) form,  A•cos(θ) + jA•sin(θ), simplifies addition and subtraction."

After reading what you said, I think what's missing is a statement that multiplication between a phasor and a complex impedance is another phasor. But multiplication of two phasors (or squaring one) does not produce another phasor.

While we're on a roll, what do you think of this excerpt:

 * "...the complex potential in such fields as electromagnetic theory, where—instead of manipulating a real quantity, u—it is often more convenient to derive its harmonic conjugate, v, and then operate upon the complex quantity u + jv, again recovering the real component of the complex "result" as the last stage of computation to generate the true result."

 * Is it useful/helpful?
 * Does it contribute to the understanding of "phasor"?
 * Does the term "operate on" need clarification? E.g., is multiplication restricted to just one "complex potential" and something passive?

--Bob K 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

 * "Is it useful/helpful?" IMHO, No.
 * "Does it contribute to the understanding of "phasor"? I think I answered that already ;<)
 * "Does the term "operate on" need clarification?" Not after you've deleted that material.

 * You know, the quote above regarding complex math isn't necessary either. I understand that everybody wants to contribute something to Wikipedia but, as a result, there's a lot of excess verbosity in articles where a wikilink would suffice.  What do you think?  Alfred Centauri 21:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! I also moved the trig stuff to a more appropriate article.

--Bob K 21:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

DC is sinusoid of 0 frequency
I removed this statement from the Circuit Laws section for the reasons that it isn't quite correct and isn't needed anyhow to justify the use of phasors. The problem is that phasors are complex numbers in general. DC circuits do not have complex voltages or currents. So, while phasors generalize DC circuit analysis to AC circuits, we can't really go back the other way unless we want to admit complex DC sources. Alfred Centauri 01:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Well yes but the impedance of an inductor and a capacitor go to 0 and infinity respectively at dc. So provided there are no complex dc sources in the circuit there will be no complex voltages or currents in the circuit. Plugwash 19:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

But my point is precisely that equating DC with a zero frequency sinusoid, as you have done above, is not quite correct. Consider the following AC circuit:

A voltage source of 1 + j0 Vrms in series with a 1 ohm resistor and a current source of 0 - j1 Arms. The average power associated with the resistor is 1W and is independent of frequency, right? But wait; recall that the time domain voltage source and current source functions are given by:

 * $$v_s(t)=\sqrt{2}cos(\omega t) V\,$$

 * $$i_s(t)=\sqrt{2}sin(\omega t) A\,$$

Setting the frequency to zero we get:

 * $$v_s(t)=\sqrt{2}cos(0) V = \sqrt{2} V\,$$

 * $$i_s(t)=\sqrt{2}sin(0) A = 0 A\,$$

With a 'DC' current of 0A, the power associated with the resistor is 0W but this result conflicts with the result above. Clearly, in the context of AC circuit analysis, it is not quite correct to say that DC is just zero frequency. Alfred Centauri 22:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's something else to consider. The rms voltage of a DC source is simply the DC voltage value. The rms voltage of an AC voltage source is the peak voltage over the square root of 2. Since this result is independent of frequency, it seems reasonable to believe that the rms voltage of a zero frequency cosine is equal to the rms value for any non-zero frequency cosine. However, if we insert a frequency of zero into a cosine, the result is the constant peak value, not the constant rms value. Once again, it does not appear to be entirely correct to say that a DC source is a sinusoidal source of zero frequency. Alfred Centauri 23:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ahh yes but you introduced a complex source, if all dc sources are real then all dc voltages and currents must also be real and the power calculations work fine. Plugwash 01:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not true! Look at the expression for i_s(t). That is a real source my friend regardless of frequency. It is the phasor representation of this source that is complex. Further, look at the 2nd example I give. No complex sources there, right? Alfred Centauri 02:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Phasor analysis cannot be used for power calculations at all, since the basis of phasor notation is a magnitude and angle for a single cosine at a particular frequency. You just can't multiply two phasors together and get a phasor out - that's why AC power analysis is trickier.  To get the rms power, you can multiply the phasor representations of the rms values together to get a complex number that gives the real and imaginary power, but then the rms value of a zero-frequency current at $$\pi/2$$ will be 0... DukeEGR93 23:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Phasor analysis can and is used for power calculations. Although your statement is correct that the product of two phasors is not a phasor, this fact does not imply your assertion. After all, the fact that impedance, being the ratio of two phasors, is not a phasor does not make impedance any less useful a concept. Similarly, the complex power given by the product of the voltage and conjugate current (rms) phasors, while not being a phasor, is nonetheless a valid and useful quantity whose real part is the time average power (not the 'rms' power!) and whose imaginary part is the peak reactive power.

Your statement that "the rms value of a zero-frequency current at $$\pi/2$$ will be 0." is not even wrong. There is no such thing as an rms value at pi/2. The rms value of a unit amplitude sinusoid - regardless of frequency or phase - is $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$$. Alfred Centauri 00:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we will have to disagree with that latter one since the rms of $$\sin(0t+\pi/2)$$ is certainly not $$1/\sqrt{2}$$ - in the singular case of DC, the phase is important to determining the rms value. For the former, perhaps just as you are saying $$\cos(\omega t+\theta)$$ is not a sinusoid if $$\omega=0$$, I would say that it is not phasor analysis being used to compute power (or find impedance values $$\mathbb{Z}$$ for that matter) but rather phasors used to find complex numbers that are not in and of themselves phasors.  DukeEGR93 04:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There's no room for disagreement here. By definition, the rms value of a sinusoid is:

$$\sqrt {{1 \over {T}} {\int_{-T/2}^{T/2} {(cos(\frac{2\pi}{T} t + \phi)}\, })^2 dt}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$$

Note that this result holds in the limit as the period T goes to infinity. Thus, your assertion that the phase is important in determining the rms value is obviously false - even in the case where the frequency is zero (infinite period). If this isn't clear to you yet, then think about the time average power deliverd to a resistor by a sinsoidal voltage source with an arbitrarily large period (T = 15 billion years for example) compared to that delivered by a true DC voltage source. Alfred Centauri 05:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Presumably you are not saying the rms value of either $$sin(0t)$$ or $$cos(0t)$$ is $$1/\sqrt{2}$$, are you? Beyond that, I am absolutely correct that the rms value of $$cos(\theta)$$ depends on $$\theta$$ - there is simply no way around that, either. DukeEGR93 06:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

 * You have presumed incorrectly. I do indeed claim that the rms value of either $$\sin(0t)$$ or $$\cos(0t)$$ is $$1/\sqrt{2}$$.  This is clearly so from the definition of the rms value of a sinusoidal function of time I gave above.  That fact that you choose to ignore a valid mathematical result is troubling enough but then you proceed to compound your error by equating $$\cos(0t + \theta)$$ with $$\cos(\theta)$$.  Don't you see?  The former is a function of time but the later is not.  If you do not see the difference, then integrate both expressions with respect to time and see what happens.  Finally, your assertion that the rms value of a zero frequency sinusoidal function of time depends on the phase violates a fundamental principle - that absolute phase is not physically meaningful.  To claim otherwise is equivalent to claiming that a choice of zero time has physical meaning.

 * Look, let's say you have a sinusoidal voltage source connected to a resistor. You claim that $$v(t)=\cos(\omega t + \phi)$$V.  However, I claim that $$v(t')=\cos(\omega t')V$$ where $$t' = t + \phi / \omega$$.  That is, my choice of zero time differs from your choice of zero time.  Nonetheless, we both calculate the same rms voltage across the resistor.  This is as it should be because the choice of zero time (or equivalently, the phase) is arbitrary so we should calculate the same average power delivered to the resistor.  Note that I have not placed any constraint for the frequency here.  In fact, according to the principle that the choice of zero time has no physical meaning, this result should hold for the case of zero frequency.  However, according to your claim, in the case of zero frequency, we will calculate different average powers!  Which one is correct?  Which choice of time zero is correct?  Surely you can see that this is an absurd result!  Alfred Centauri 22:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

 * So, what is $$lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}(0*t)$$? I believe you are banking too much on your definition when this is clearly a singular case worth of singular definition. Your transformation of variables has a major issue in that you are transforming a finite, bounded space into unbounded, infinite space.  Though, in all this, I very much appreciate the prompts to really think about these things.  One of my colleagues in the Math department, when posed with the question, immediately answered "I'm not a statistician," which I thought was a bit of a cop-out.  :) DukeEGR93 01:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Phasors have a MAGNITUDE and a PHASE. The two are independent of each other, in this case the MAGNITUDE is actually an RMS value, but whether you divide by root(2) or not, the magnitude of the phasor is independent of phase.  Remember, a phasor is always over a COMPLETE cycle, so it doesn't matter where in time you feel like labeling the start of that cycle.  A complete cycle of a of a 0 freqency phasor in fact never ends - you just integrate on into infinity.  The function does not converge... so the above definition of RMS value of a 0 frequency phasor is undefined:  infinity over infinity.  However, it can be shown that with DC you can choose ANYTHING besides two zeroes for your limits of integration and you just get the maginitude of the DC signal.  In reality, the RMS value of a DC signal is just the magnitude of the DC signal.  Just substitute 0 for T in the above equation.  Or think about it graphically.  A flat line at y=2 has a square of y=4.  No matter where you start or stop integrating (as long as you eventually stop, i.e. you don't go to either infinity), you have a rectangle of area 4*T.  This is then divided by T in the equation, so you have the square root of 4... which is 2.

 * Reply to anonymous. (1) The magnitude of a phasor can be the peak value of the associated sinusoid.  It is not always an RMS value.  (2) The statement "a phasor is always over a COMPLETE cycle" doesn't even rise to the level of being wrong.  A phasor is a constant complex number - it has no time dependence so the notion of a cycle is meaningless in the context of a phasor.  (3) Regarding your 'argument' that the RMS value of 0 frequency phasor is undefined:  a phasor doesn't have a frequency.  (4) Infinity over infinity is not undefined - it is indeterminate.  (5)  Does the Fourier integral of cos(t) converge?  Alfred Centauri 01:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Somehow all this reminded me of a quote, "There's no such thing as chaos, only really long transients." Struckthrough rms in front of power above.  Long day...  How about this - the sinusoidal representation of $$A\cos(0t+\theta)$$ is really $$(Acos(\theta))(cos(0t))$$ such that its phasor notation would be $$A\cos(\theta)\angle0^o$$.  That solves the average power problem, so long as you only use the rms version of $$\mathbb{S}=\mathbb{V}_{rms}\mathbb{I}^{*}_{rms}$$, in that the result will be purely real given phase angles will always be zero for DC quantities given the above representation.  Then again, there's no such thing as DC, only really long periods...  DukeEGR93 04:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

While $$A\cos(0t + \theta) = Acos(0t)cos(\theta)\,$$ is true for finite t, it does not hold if t goes to infinity (0 * infinity can by any number). However, to take the rms value of a zero frequency sinusoid, we must in fact integrate over all time. It is for this reason that the rms value of the zero frequency sinusoid on the left is $$A / \sqrt{2}$$ while the rms value of the zero frequency sinusoid on the right is $$Acos(\theta)/\sqrt{2}$$. Alfred Centauri 06:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Reply to Alfred's comment above me: "A phasor is a constant complex number": As a side note, while it's true phasors are complex constants in lumped circuits (which is what is being discussed hereñ, they're complex functions of one real variable spatial in transmission lines, and they're complex functions of three real spatial variables in electromagnetic waves. Alej27 (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Different from the concept of Physics?
Well, I think that the phasors for electronics is an application of those concepts....

Gabriel

The electronics phasors dont behave like the vectors, and they dont obey the rules of vectors studied in Physics (Statics & Dynamics)

Nauman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.173.10 (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nauman is right ,Electronics phasors dont behave the same way as the physics phasors, they are different , for reference see Fundamentals of Electric Circuits by , Sergio Franco , chapter 10 , AC Response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.164.243 (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Transients & Phasor analysis
I removed the following text from the intro:

(Important note: The phasor approach is for "steady state" calculations involving sinusoidal waves. It cannot be used when transients are involved. For calculations involving transients, the Laplace transform approach is often used instead.)

I don't believe that this statement is necessary even if it were true but, that fact is, phasors can be used to analyze transients. The bottom line is that the complex coefficents of a Fourier series or the inverse Fourier integral are phasors.

It is usually stated that phasor analysis assumes sinusoidal steady state at one frequency and this is true as far as it goes. However, it is quite straightforward to extend phasor analysis to a circuit with multiple frequency sinusoidal excitation. When one does this, it is clear this extension is nothing other than frequency domain analysis. In other words, phasor analysis is frequency domain analysis at a fixed frequency. Alfred Centauri 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Phasor (physics)
This article (Phasor (electronics)) describes essentially the same thing as Phasor (physics). I believe there is no reason to maintain two different articles. The main difference between them is that this article describes the concept of phasors from the viewpoint of an engineer who uses it in a specific domain, while the other article is more general, but lacks some details that this one has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.177.44.96 (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

I agree they describe the same thing. The physics article takes a vector approach, while the electronics article is based on complex numbers. The electronics article is far more practical, while the physics article is far more theoretical, and IMO, less useful. Concatenating the electronics article to the physics article as is would probably be a good idea. Neither article is very long, though the electronics article could do without the power engineering section - it doesn't add much to the concept of phasors.

All I can say is that the Phasor (electronics) page helped me pass ECE 203. The more general physics page wouldn't have helped nearly as much.

 * Merging does not mean removing information. The techniques discussed in Phasor (electronics) do not only apply to electronics. A more general context would be appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.177.44.134 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

THEY ARE THE SAME KNOWLEDGE. THEY ARE THE SAME MATERIAL, THEY ARE SYNOMINOUS. To make people happy just put the same concepts at both places.

Would it be okay to call "Phasor (Physics)" "Phasor" and rename "Phasor (electronics)" to "Application of phasors in electronics" or something of the like? All redundant material introducing abstract phasors could be deleted from the latter, and it could be considered building on the former. —1st year EE student —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.192.216 (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with the above suggestion. We can call the Phasor (Physics) simply Phasor and rename the electronics article to Applications of Phasors in Electronics. We would cut down on redundancy, and make both articles mesh together better. xC | ☎  22:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Definately merge them. Mpassman (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Role of Linearity
I like the section on Phasor arithmetic and I suggest noting that the role of linearity is also an important component of the technique. If, for example, the differential equation in the example were not linear then phasors would be for naught. gaussmarkov 0:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Done. Alfred Centauri 00:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Importance of the properties of the Re{} operator
I think it should be better explained why the Re{} operator is usually dropped before some complicated algebra and then reapplied at the end. e.g. how the differential operator can be moved inside the Re{} operator. -Roger 23:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

 * Isn't the explanation simply the orthogonality of even and odd functions? Alfred Centauri 02:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Orthogonality (or something a little more elusive) is the reason for wanting to do operations in the complex domain, as I will try to explain. Linearity, loosely defined as operations that affect the Re and Im components independently, is a characteristic of certain mathematical operations that may be moved inside the Re operator without changing the net effect. Such operations include differentiation, integration, time-delay, multiplication by a (real-valued) scalar, and addition. No orthogonality is required to do these things.

If we limited our phasor arithmetic to those kinds of operations, the Im part we chose would not matter, and there would be no benefit at all. The benefit comes from choosing an orthogonal waveform to the Re component, such that:

 * $$I(t) + i\cdot Q(t) = e^{i (\omega t + \theta)},$$

which has the useful property:

 * $$I(t-\tau)+i\cdot Q(t-\tau) = (I(t)+i\cdot Q(t))\cdot e^{-i \omega \tau},$$

whereas:

 * $$I(t-\tau) = \cos(\omega(t-\tau)+\theta) = \cos(\omega t+\theta)\cdot \cos(\omega \tau) + \sin(\omega t+\theta)\cdot \sin(\omega \tau).$$

We see that in the complex domain, a time-delay can be represented more simply by just the product with a complex scalar (which is why impedances are complex). So it appears that the motivation for working in the complex domain is to simplify the effect of time-delays / phase-shifts caused by linear devices with "memory".
 * Multiplication of 2 phasors, such as by a mixer or a square-law rectifier, is not linear. Phasors may look like scalars, but one has to remember that they are actually a shorthand notation for a time-variant waveform.

--Bob K 15:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

problem with the new introduction
The word "phasor" has two meanings. One meaning includes the $$e^{j\omega t}$$ factor, and the other excludes it. Until recently these were relegated to different articles, one called "Phasor (physics)" and the other called "Phasor (engineering)" (I think). But there was fairly strong sentiment to merge the articles, which resulted in this one. The new introduction appears to be heading back to the "Phasor (engineering)" article.

--Bob K (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My bias is showing; but the opening paragraph should follow the forumula of giving at least a concise definition of the subject. The introduction isn't new, it's a rehash of a paragraph from a month or so ago. Let's rewrite the opening so that it allows both definitions. If the meanings are really disparate we need two articles, though I don't think we ever had "Phasor (engineering)". --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I looked back. It was "Phasor (electronics)". I'm sure we can come up with a suitable introduction. It really is the same concept in both disciplines. But the physicists are less inclined to solve circuit equations.

--Bob K (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Phasor diagrams
I think that there should be separated article dedicated to phasor diagrams - describing their making and meaning.

--User:Vanished user 8ij3r8jwefi 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

sinusoids are easily expressed in terms of phasors, which are more convenient to work with than sine and cosine functions. a phasor is a complex number that represents the amplitude and phase of a sinusoid. phasors provide a simple means of analyzing linear circuits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.147.2 (talk) 07:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Phasors in Communication Systems
Does anyone have images of phasors in relation to FM and PM modulation? That would be a good section to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddoria (talk • contribs) 17:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarify "sine wave"
The section called "Definition" shows only cosine functions. The term "sine wave" is used to refer to expressions that involve only cos(...) expressions, I think that this customary paradox of mathematical terminology should be mentioned even though the definition in the article refers only to the complex number representation.

Tashiro (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, is this going to confuse anyone? There must be about 0.001% of the population who were awake for the math class that talked about 'sine' and then ran out before hearing about 'cosine'. The distinction is immaterial for the purposes of this article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the point is not only that, but: if anyone has a serious sine/cosine confusion, do you really expect the complex (no pun intended) definition of such functions, which is on the very same line, not to scare them out of the article? Habbit (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on sine waves defines them by using the sin function. It says that cosine waves are "sinusoidal". I understand that this is essentially a quibble, but the history of when people walked out of class may be that they walked out of class 40 years ago, so which facts are remembered is rather random after that period of time. It would only require one sentence to clarify this. Tashiro (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring the pink elephant in the middle of the room: people confusing sin and cos will not understand the following concepts used in the article:
 * Complex algebra
 * De Moivre's identity and/or the definition of sin and cos as complex exponentials
 * Complex analysis (differentiation and integration)
 * The confusing mixup of all of the above
 * Why I am so sure? Because trigonometry appears constantly in complex algebra! So yes, the "sine wave" reference could be clarified just right, but that would be like turning "Hello, 友人" into "Hello (greeting), 友人". It is indeed clearer, but just by an epsilon and does not help the understanding of the rest of the article, while a change like "Hello, 友人 (friend)" would radically do so. Habbit (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I made "sine waves" an internal link. The linked article already contains this clarification: A cosine wave is said to be "sinusoidal", because $$\cos(x) = \sin(x + \pi/2),$$ which is also a sine wave with a phase-shift of π/2. --Bob K (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The illustration: "Graph of a phasor as a rotating vector"
I teach a course on linear circuits, including a section on Phasors. The illustration titled "Graph of a phasor as a rotating vector" is both helpful and awkward at the same time. Some students find it harder to understand a typical phasor diagram (stationary, drawn on paper) after looking at the spinning phasor illustrated. I have two suggestions.

1.) In the top half of the illustration, some students cannot fathom that in the present illustration the time axis itself is sinking down the screen as the vector rotates.  Instead, fix the time axis in place and let the dot move both vertically and horizontally.  One could show exactly one cycle of a (stationary) sinusoid so that as the phasor rotates through one revolution a dot on the sinusoid sweeps upwards following the function, then rolls over to the bottom and starts upwards again with the next rotation of the phasor.  A dashed line to show the dot's projection on the time axis would also help.  Be sure the sinusoid has some initial phase offset, for example,

y(t) = cos(t + 2pi/3)

Label the horizontal y(t) axis with "+1" on the right and "-1" on the left. Label the vertical axis with a "t" at or near the top and with a few tic marks labeled in radians from 0 to 2pi.

2.) On the bottom half of the illustration create a strobe-light effect to illustrate a stationary view of the phasor, as would be drawn on paper.  Show the rotating phasor dimmed to grey and dark blue most of the time.  When the dot in the top half of the illustration rolls over to the t = 0 spot, show the bottom half with a bright white background and bright blue lines (as is presently shown).  Then as the phasor continues to rotate, return to the dimmed view in the bottom half of the illustration.  What I have in mind is the effect of a strobe light that flashes at time t = 0 and every period (T, 2T, 3T, etc.) thereafter, thus illustrating how we interpret a phasor diagram drawn on paper.  Students need to understand that what we draw statically on a page of paper represents the angular relations at time t = 0.

(I sure wish I had the tools to put such an illustration together and just show it!)

Dfdeboer (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

 * The rotating phasor isn't actually a phasor; phasors are time-independent, so they can't rotate by themselves. What rotates are sinors (also known as instantaneous complex value), which are equal to a phasor times e^(j w t). --Alej27 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Phasor addition missing steps
The Phasor Addition section took me a little bit of time to make sense of. The step by step calculation is trivial for the first few step (combining terms in the Re operator, etc), and then out of nowhere: Boom! A3 and theta3 are introduced with a fairly complex definition for each. It eventually made sense to me when I drew out the phasor diagram and looked at the x/y components, but something should help fill that gap. --Gradenko (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Formatting errors
I am not sure how to fix them, so it would be great if somebody else could fix the syntax so that the equations start showing up. Cheers. Vignesh.Mukund (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Origin
The article had quite a poorly developed lead. I've added more essentials, including the origin as it is commonly attributed in (US) EE textbooks, but upon glancing on some Google Books snippets from Kline's biography of Steinmetz, I think the origin story was more complex. Alas I don't have immediate access to Kline's, but it's something to keep in mind (and go to) if counterclaims appear. 86.121.137.79 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Added an extra section of why study phasors and a bit more information on phasor diagrams
Phasors are used almost everywhere in power engineering and their usefulness should be linked. There is also not a significant mention of lead and lag, which is important when we compare between voltages and currents. A picture would help to illustrate the example of lead and lag for example. Phase angles also should be mentioned as being relative to each other and that you can set a reference point(which is usually the voltage source.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.98.7.11 (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Useless
This article is very good for we that have studied phasors. However, it is useless to a newcomer. They will leave with less knowledge,,, why am I explaining this? Try to fix it. Over and out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longinus876 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

 * What's really useless is your non-specific criticism and lack of constructive suggestions. It's not WikiPedia's job to write every article from the bottom up assuming the reader has no prerequisite knowledge of the topic.  Please show a little appreciation and respect for those (unlike yourself) who have actually volunteered their time and experience to creating an article that is at least (in your words) "very good for we that have studied phasors".  Over and out.
 * --Bob K (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Mistake on the definition of sinor?
In the first paragraph of this article, it is stated that phasors are also called sinors (in older textbooks), and even a reference was cited to this. So, it seems like this is true.

However, in the book Fundamentals of Electric Circuits by Charles Alexander and Matthew Sadiku, phasors and sinors are defined differently. In the case of phasors, they are defined as usual, that is as Ae^(jθ); but sinors are defined as Ae^(jθ)e^(jωt) = Ae^(j(θ+ωt)).

I think this should be cleared, so I'd like to confirm if, whoever who cited that sinors are the same as phasors, actually didn't confuse those two terms. Perhaps they could share a screenshot/photo of the page of the cited textbook.

Alej27 (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Physics vs EE sign conventions
I was recently editing the article of Fourier transforms, and I found a citation to a source with a ton of information on phasors. It's about the difference between i and j as representations of the complex component of phasors, as i is the usual standard in theoretical physics and j is the usual standard in electrical engineering, and all of the sign conventions that relate to that. It seems to be of sufficient relevance and importance to warrant being included in this article, but this doesn't mention anything of the sort. I don't have sufficient interest to want to invest the time to add the info to this article, but I figured I'd mention it here so that someone with an interest could. The source is 74.96.192.195 (talk) 08:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's some very odd claims going on in that paper which I would treat as dubious without reliably published sources backing it up. The j in EE is defined exactly the same as the i in mathematics. I find it hard to believe that i (physics) = −j, and by implication, = −i (mathematics).  Likewise, the idea that physics defines the positive direction of phasor rotation as clockwise, in cotradistinction to EE, is also debatable.  In mathematics, the positive direction of rotation is right-handed rotation, that is, anticlockwise as looking down on the axis of rotation.  I think the author is discussing one particular quantity (complex refractive index) where there is a difference of definition and drawing unwarranted conclusions from it by implication. SpinningSpark 17:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Phasor


text:
Ekibastuz GRES-2 Power Station

The GRES-2 Power Station (or Power Station Ekibastuz) is a coal-fueled power generating station in Ekibastuz, Kazakhstan. It is located close to Solnechny, by lake Shandaksor. The ashes of the station are dumped into nearby lake Karasor.

Description
GRES-2, commissioned in 1987, has an installed capacity of 1,000 MWe and has the world's tallest flue-gas stack at 419.7 m tall. The reinforced concrete chimney is about 40 m taller than the Inco Superstack in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. It is the tallest chimney ever built.

The power station is the start of the Powerline Ekibastuz–Kokshetau and uses a transmission voltage of 1,150 kVAC, the highest transmission voltage in the world. The extension of this line to Chelyabinsk in Russia is also designed for 1,150 kV, but it currently operates at only 500 kV. About 3/4 of the energy produced by GRES-2 was exported to Russia.

Fifty percent of GRES-2 shares are owned by Inter RAO UES, and fifty percent by Kazakhstan's government.

Individual units
The planned capacity of 4,000 MWe is to be provided by eight equal units, 500 MWe each.
 * Unit 1 was launched into service in December 1990.
 * Unit 2 was launched into service in December 1993.
 * Construction of Unit 3 was started in 1990 but later stopped.

title: Ekibastuz GRES-2 Power Station


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pascal Thériault Lauzier

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pascal Thériault Lauzier
Currently tagged with, it looks like vanity. Zzyzx11 | Talk 05:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, poor vanity. Grue 17:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity.  Verified that Mr. Lauzier is a typical college student...indeed on his school football team, presented a math paper, and is in the astronomy club.  Not much different from the rest of the college students out there. Tobycat 05:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Well this article is about me and I am not the author. A friend of mine wrote it during a party when we were talking about wiki. We wanted to know how fast it would be deleted. paslau 1:49, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.