User talk:Bert Hickman

Woodridge, Illinois' own Mad Scientist and local fire hazard

Electrical Breakdown

Very nice edit Bert!! I actually enjoyed reading it and it flows very well. Some good extra info also. well done!Light current 04:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Solarization

I have taken the liberty of creating a new article for Solarization as it seems to be sufficently different from Solarisation to justify this. I have also cross linked them to assist navigation. Unfortunately this means that your edit only appears against the Solarisation article at present but further additions to Solarization would be welcome. Velela 19:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Coin shrinking

Bert, Ive sent you a private email at your Stoneridge email address re coin shrinking. Please have look!--Light current 00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dielectric absorption

Could you please create an article about the dielectric absorption, which you put an information into Supercapacitor? I would like to learn what it means ;-) --Zureks 13:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Capacitance

Why did you remove the following texts from capacitance?

It is instructive to use the farad to test the claim that all units can be reduced to the SI minima of kilograms, meters, seconds, and coulombs. For our purposes, we start with the equations W = QV and Q = CV, whence the units of capacitance (C) are those of Q squared over W (work). Now, Q squared is measured in coulombs squared (fundamental SI units), while W is measured in newton-meters, with one newton equating to one kilogram-meter per second squared, whence the unis of W are kilogram-meters squared per second squared. Dividing through, one finds that the farad is equivalent to one coulomb squared-second squared per kilogram-meter squared in base SI units.--Doktor Who 13:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

+

Maxwell's equation combining Ampere's law with the displacement current concept is given as curl H = dD/dt + J, where, in keeping with notational stricture, curl is emboldened because it is a vector operator. (Integrating both sides, the integral of curl H can be replaced—courtesy of Stokes's theorem—with the integral of H ● dl over a closed contour, thus demonstrating the interconnection with Ampere's formulation.)

I understand that some heavy improvement is needed, but deletion is too drastic. --Doktor Who 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I apparently accidentally edited an earlier copy of the article, which deleted some of the later text. Sorry about that - I've reinserted the text. I agree that it does add value. Sorry about the error... Bert 01:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, that happens sometimes (see the article electric guitar, I'm not going to fix it cos I'm sure that a bot would revert me, eheh); thx for quick edit.--Doktor Who 09:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The displacement current does not make sense. In fact all current makes no sense. If there can be a displacement current then why, do you need any electrons to exist ever?

In power engineering current can be a property of the power SOURCE, ie, a battery, with extra current, a step down transformer that steps down the voltage and increases the current. In electronics, current is ALWAYS a property of the load. Hmm, in my physics lab, we "proved" the electron existed, and calculated the amount of electrons on a LED circuit based strictly on voltage. What happens if you put many batteries in parallel, increasing the current, but keeping the voltage the same? the LED shines brighter, but now I have increaded the amount of electrons, with the same voltage. So tell me, is "current" a property of the load, or the SOURCE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.89.32.166 (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume your circuit consisted of a voltage source, a current limiting resistor (R) (possibly inside the LED), and an LED? An ideal voltage source (Vs) has no internal resistance (0 ohms). The LED is a type of diode that will have a fairly constant voltage (Vd) across its terminals when it is conducting. The overall current in the loop will be I = (Vs-Vd)/R. Simply adding an identical ideal voltage source in parallel with the first source will not change the overall current going through the LED, since Vs remains the same for either case. However, if you are actually using a non-ideal voltage source (such as a battery), the source itself will also have some internal resistance, and its output voltage will drop as you draw current from it. In this case, it is indeed possible that connecting two identical batteries in parallel will cause the LED to brighten a bit. As this example illustrates, current can be a function of BOTH the source and the load. Bert (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Let's just say that in a resistor type load on a power source power is Vs squared/R, and is divided up inversly proportional to whereever the R values are located.WFPMWFPM (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)WFPMWFPM (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Electric shock

Thanks for the link. I'm actually an EE myself, but, like most recently minted EEs, I have precious little experience with power engineering. I asked the question due to my being the victim of some power-related negligence (to the tune of 56 V). I'm still alive, thankfully, but I worry about future victims. I don't know whether it was AC or DC; I suppose I should have asked the electrician. Calbaer 06:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're quite welcome - work (and play) safely! Bert 22:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Hi! Welcome to the Wikipedia Electron program; where it is possibleto propose all sorts of properties for a small electrically charged nuclear particle, including the possibility that it doesn't exist! But i'm also an EE, and I.ve made my share of proposals. But mostly in the field of nuclear physics where we need something to radiate electromagnetic energy in the form of angular momentum, which means at the end of a radius arm. So welcome in and join the crowd. And good luck! WFPMWFPM (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Of course I'm talking about resistance in series.WFPMWFPM (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Electrical breakdown, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surge (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Bert

Thanks for your edits on the lightning page! I appreciate your attention to detail.

• With regards to your replacement of "AC" with "transients", I am in agreement that it is such.... but reality is there is little to nothing out there to back the use of "transients", representations of the waveform, and or other means to draw a clear distinction as to why we are concerned about impedance or skin effect. My use of wording "similar to AC" was to make that connection clearer. Maybe you could think of something along those lines? Maybe something to due with multiple strokes... cause a "pulsy" current that is "cycling", more similar to AC cycling that straight line DC???

Lightning discharge current transients consist of very fast leading edges and slower falling edges. It can be shown that a lightning current pulse is actually composed of sums of high frequency components (see Fourier Transform). It is these high frequency current components that are most impacted by skin effect - the faster the rise and fall times, the higher the frequency components making up the transient. However, even more important than path resistance is the path inductance, since the voltage drop along the path will be proportional to the rate of change in current times the inductance (V = L*di/dt). For example, a lightning strike that rises to 50 kA in 5 microseconds has a di/dt of 10^10 Amperes/second. A straight AWG #0 wire will have a an inductance of about 250 nH/ft, so the inductive voltage developed across the grounding conductor will be ~2500 volts/foot in addition to any resistive drop.

• Noting leader generation is easily seen, captured by high speed video, etc. I have some serious concerns... as (& correct me if I'm wrong) most video & pictures of this which "demonstrate the ease" of seeing leader generation are during CC flashes, WHEN "termination to a solid surface starting discharge is impossible to tell. A downward leader in CG attaching to a streamer, there is little doubt when the discharge begins... and all those supposed "visible" leaders are functions of the primary stroke channel, and our observational perception of the branches ["visible leaders"] is they appear to be growing outward due to the fluctuating brightness.

Leaders (and especially leader tips) are quite luminous during propagation. The comparatively high current (amperes to 10's of amperes) is much higher than dimmer corona or glow discharges. They are simply much dimmer than the return stroke and they propagate at high velocity, making them hard to see in "real time". Propagating leaders have been extensively studied for HV laboratory sparks as well as for negative and positive lightning, and avalanche, streamer, and leader propagation processes are fairly well understood (see Yuri P Raizer, "Gas Discharge Physics", Springer-Verlag, 1997, ISBN 3540194622). For lightning, they are observed to propagate in steps (negative leaders) or relatively smoothly (positive leaders). Some good examples of both types of luminous propagating leaders can be seen on Tom Warner's site: http://www.ztresearch.com/projects/highspeed/index.html

I think for a matter of trying to distinguish the longer duration period of leader propagation and the often ignored development steps required for a flash to occur, before discharge can even occur, we are doing a major disservice to all saying it is easily captured. Is the general reader going to be able to distinguish the difference [physical reality versus observational perception], I really think not when they often fail to recognize the simple observation/perceptional properties of "if a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?" and honestly question "Does lightning always produce thunder? I saw lightning, but never hear thunder?" Do you get where I'm going here? Thanks again! There is still lots of work to do here. uggg, but it will happen! Borealdreams (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Science is full of phenomena that cannot be directly observed. These phenomena are often "easily" observable when using the appropriate pieces of equipment, such as Tom Warner's high speed video cameras. If we ignore underlying phenomena because they are not observable with our unassisted senses, then we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia readers by omitting important (and known) pieces of the lightning puzzle. "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" A. Einstein...  :^)

I've just learned a lot in what you have written. Conceptually, I believe I'm very well informed about lightning, whereby I can put it all together or as needed here, break it all apart into enough "parts" so the average wiki reader can grasp the complexities of it, to understand it is not just a "flash of light in the sky". I would have believed there were others out there, who would understand both well enough to have made this page of much better quality... but that's never occurred. So alas, I look forward to your assistance in filling in the details where I fall short or where I unintentionally error in my judgement. What you've written has shed new light on the matter, so I've reorganized accordingly, and hoping you might find some room for filling in the blanks accordingly. I've been considering (heavily) moving the flash processes section out of lightning and into lightning strike, given I feel it is better understood & representative of CG than IC/CG and that is might remove some "overwhelming" factor from this page given the extensiveness of the material needing to be covered. Thanks again! :) Borealdreams (talk) 08:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - will do as time permits. Bert (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been seeing the edits, great! Very interesting art you do by the way! Do your friends call you "Sparky"? :) Quick question (detail not needed) - Does "Positive" lightning only happen in CG, or can it happen in IC&CC as well, or do we really not know as it is a "referential" nomenclature, and we not physically measuring it in the clouds?

I'm seriously considering moving the "lightning formation" sections out of Lightning, potentially creating a new page "Lightning Flash" as it's getting confusing given we are using Negative CG Downward as the "example" which then begs the question, "Why isn't it in Lightning Strike?" Following me? I'm setting this up & related on my user page, if you want to take a gander & give me your thoughts. Thanks again! Borealdreams (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks also for the kind words - we're getting ready to make some more Lichtenberg Figures in early June. The internal potential on our Plexiglas specimens can reach about 2.5 million volts, making discharging them "interesting"... :^) The internal discharges are actually "positive leaders", and they leave behind positive Lichtenberg figures.

Positive lightning is defined as lightning that is preceded by long positive leaders that are propagating from a more positively charged source/cloud region to a less positive, neutral, or negatively charged region. The positive charge source can be a portion of a thunderstorm (most often the top/anvil, but not always), or an elevated grounded object that is inductively charged by a negative charged cloud region above. Although positive lightning is most often observed as CG lightning, it also occurs within IC, CC, and even cloud to clear air discharges. I assume that a "lightning strike" is defined as a CG discharge (of either polarity)(?) - i.e., a subset of the broader classes of all lightning discharges.Bert (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bert Hickman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Leader (spark) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leader (spark) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leader (spark) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 07:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

Hello, I'm FriyMan. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to User talk:Bert Hickman have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 07:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tesla coil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Permeability (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)