Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance

Welcome to the Assistance reading room where Wikibookians help each other solve problems encountered while contributing to books or otherwise taking part in the Wikibooks community.

How do I improve my wikibook, or is it impossible to improve it?

I'm curious why my recent addition to Wikibooks was tagged for speedy deletion instead of engaging me in conversation on its talk page for collaboration of improvements?

I'm also curious how I may improve it? Or, is it beyond repair? Claiming it is nonsensical displays ignorance on the part of the person who is making that claim which is either due to that person not reading it through, or requiring a tutor to help them understand it. But, no one is offering to ask questions about specific statements or sections of the text to help me make improvements. So, I'm left with the impression that "speedy deletion" is a form of acceptable vandalism?

I'm been through this before. It merely takes two people to delete something. And that requirement has already been met. And none of my objections has been countered with anything other than vague claims of: "nonsensical rouge" and "This is original research of the most egregious kind trying to pretend that the laws of physics are a fantasy. It doesn't belong here."

I've added a warning (under the section, entitled: Synopsis), yet still have not heard from anyone in response.

WARNING — These criteria are intended to garner success under simulation and usually within the context of the Berkeley SPICE family of simulators (but not all the time; other simulators are, also, useful depending upon the situation). Although they are supported by standard mathematical criteria describing the conventional engineering of electrodynamic theory, they are not intended to qualify the physics behind these simulated strategies. That implication is left to the reader to vindicate, or not, through verifiable experience at your own risk of safety and success. User, beware.

And I've added a warning at the top of the page in the format of a preamble.

This Wikibook is not intended for anyone who lacks any background in basic electrical engineering, for it requires a familiarity with: Ohm's Law, Electrical Reactance, Complex Numbers, and their Polynomial Multiplication, basic electricity theory, and familiarity with electronic simulators. Without these skills, you'll be lost trying to understand whatever I have to say. You'll be perplexed anyway even with these skills since nothing you learned in school will have adequately prepared you for what is about to unfold...

There is no guarantee you will understand any of this. So, read through it -casually- once in a while without trying to understand. Repetition, with breaks in between, might help.

I'm assuming that they don't have to respond, because deletion is inevitable.

It doesn't look like it would be suitable over at Wikisource, but maybe it is suitable?Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 15:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion is not inevitable. I don't see a problem with the book but maybe the person who tagged it for deletion can share their thoughts.--Xania ^talk 04:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I asked both of them...

MarcGarver

SHB2000 -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This one is impossible. Hoaxes are not allowed on Wikibooks. SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 20:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

“This one is impossible. Hoaxes...” – Unloaded coils are well-known to exceed conventional expectations of their output. Just ask Jim Murray. {He was trained as a physicist, but switched to electrical engineering to make more money.} This expectation (of unloaded coils) is conceded by electrical engineers (according to Jim). But it took me until now to figure out how to load a coil, because using the standard technique (for loading motor coils) of adding resistance inline with the coil doesn't work (as SHB2000 remarks) since my circuits are not standard! -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 05:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Well said. Simulations only benefit those people who are willing and able to help themselves with serious study. To everyone else, it is mere entertainment (at best) or a hoax (at its worst). Involvement is the key-ingredient, normally missing among those people who have been duped by a hoax. Yet, involvement tips the scales of understanding in our favor since simulations are able to model the hoax using whatever parameters the hoax is based on to describe the virtual reality of the hoax.

To wit, ...

I spent $400 of my Social Security to purchase a rare copy of Joseph Newman's 8th edition of his book which he boasted would give the reader everything the reader needed to know to be able to build a successful replication of his device. I read various chapters describing the parameters of its inputs and outputs. On that advice, alone, I was able to deduce that Joseph Newman was a categorical liar since the leisurely speed (of its hand-cranked rotation imparted to his device) could not give overunity under simulation, namely: it could not achieve a gain of reversed current to travel backwards toward his battery pack to trickle charge his batteries (as they supplied the necessary high voltage to run his device). Only by increasing this simulation of ~30 RPMs of rotation to an incredible one million cycles per second would the prescribed effects materialize. I was flabbergasted. No one can achieve that rapid a rate of rotation among physical objects without breaking or jamming the axle of their machine. Yet, on the other hand, neither did I initially realize (until much later) that achieving that high a rate of vibration/rotation (call it what you will) is exactly one of several parameters I have since learned I can vary to achieve overunity in a simulated circuit, namely: capacitance, inductance, frequency, resistance, etc.

What I did not know, but was about to learn from an engineer, is that a noble gas (such as: helium) can vibrate and broadcast a rapidly vibrating electromagnetic frequency when subjected to a strong electrostatic charge. This satisfied my successful simulation!

I wanted to believe in Joseph Newman so much that I was appalled at his blatant lie. Yet, I posted my results on YouTube and elsewhere, nonetheless. Within a few weeks (or months), an electrical engineer got in touch with me and told me that he had given Joseph Newman a secret to build a better device that would become overunity (replacing the permanent magnets of his previous design with helium canisters wrapped with an open coil using PVC sewer pipe for its containment). Joseph used that new and improved model for all of his demonstrations and wowed the crowds with his ability to pump many gallons of water per minute while trickle charging his batteries at the same time that he was draining them of charge. This was a net gain of less than one ampere. If batteries could live forever, then this would have been a proverbial perpetual motion machine. Yet, they can't: especially since he was foolishly using non-rechargeable dry-cell batteries. In any event, this was quite a feat of human engineering! Yet, sadly, he kept the design for this new and improved model to himself sharing his earlier design (which never gives overunity) in his book and a similarly constructed working model for the Patent Office to examine. It's no wonder no one has replicated his efforts and he failed at obtaining a patent! What was he thinking?...Que sera, sera. I used LTSPICE for simulating his device. You may read about my discovery on Quora. Simulations have their limitations, but so does building stuff since there is no guarantee, whatsoever, that either method will succeed. Nor is there any guarantee that we'll understand what we've built or simulated (that's much harder). Seeing is not believing. It takes practice, lots and lots of practice, to learn all of the shortcomings of either methodology and plan to avoid its unique set of pitfalls so as to not be "duped" by those shortcomings. Ergo, "knowledge is different for different people" based on each person's unique perspective and experience.

• "...no longer logical to exclude books on video games that described strategy." -- reversal of an earlier decision to ban video strategy guides
• "...you can use video games as a primary source" -- allowance made for primary source
• "...A serious game or applied game is a game designed for a primary purpose other than pure entertainment. The "serious" adjective is generally prepended to refer to video games used by industries like defense, education, scientific exploration, health care, emergency management, city planning, engineering, and politics.
• simulators provide an intelligent tutoring system for self-guided learning
• "...teachers would have to become more involved in the creation and application of research." -- Evidence-based education must avail itself of research to stay current in today's world and simulators provide an impetus for research. -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 05:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

gallery

Hi. On the page about files there are examples like

<gallery>
File:Wiki.png
File:Wiki.png|Captioned
File:Wiki.png
File:Wiki.png|[[Help:Editing#Links|Links]] can be put in captions.
File:Wiki.png
File:Wiki.png|Full [[MediaWiki]]<br />''syntax'' may be used…
</gallery>

but "File" is not needed,

<gallery>
Wiki.png
Wiki.png|Captioned
Wiki.png
Wiki.png|[[Help:Editing#Links|Links]] can be put in captions.
Wiki.png
Wiki.png|Full [[MediaWiki]]<br />''syntax'' may be used…
</gallery>

is enough. Am I right ? should I change it ? Soul windsurfer (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 27 November 2022 (UTC)