User talk:Beisenbe

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

I suggest that the following three sentences be added to the section on Publications.

"A search of EconLit shows that Mr. Bernstein has not yet published an article in a peer-reviewed economics journal. EconLit, the American Economic Association's electronic database, is the world's foremost source of references to economic literature. The database contains more than 1.1 million records from 1886-present."

I think this is relevant information because, although Mr. Bernstein is often listed as an economist, his Ph.D. is in Social Welfare. He has not published an article in a peer-reviewed economics journal and, thus, is not recognized as an economist by professional economists. His expertise is in social policy -- not scientific research in economics.

Let me know what you think.

Ebw343 (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC) ebw343[reply]

March 2022

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Kirchhoff's circuit laws, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The central issue is why is there no derivation given of Kirchhoff's current law?
The fact is that the design of circuits on the nanosecond time scale is done with Kirchhoff's current law. References below. At that time scale, the flow of charge (e.g., the flow of electrons in a typical circuit) is not equal in a series system of two terminal components.
Why? Because the Maxwell Ampere law says that an additional term Maxwell's displacement current epsilon_0 partial E/partial t is involved.
This is proved in what I submitted in a few lines of elementary vector calculus.
Circuit design references include
Horowitz, P. and W. Hill (2015). The Art of Electronics, Cambridge University Press.
Cressler, J. D. (2005). Silicon Heterostructure Handbook: Materials, Fabrication, Devices, Circuits and Applications of SiGe and Si Strained-Layer Epitaxy. Boca Raton, FL, CRC
Gray, P. R., P. J. Hurst, S. H. Lewis and R. G. Meyer (2001). Analysis and Design of Analog Integrated Circuits. New York, John Wiley.
Lienig, J. and J. Scheible (2020). Fundamentals of layout design for electronic circuits, Springer Nature.
Muller, R. S., M. Chan and T. I. Kamins (2003). Device Electronics For Integrated Circuits, 3rd Ed, Wiley India Pvt. Limited.
Rashid, M. H., K. Afridi, J. M. Alonso, I. Batarseh, A. Bryant, J. Carrasco, L. Chaar, A. K. Chattopadhyay, M. Chow and H. S. H. Chung (2010). Power Electronics Handbook: Devices, Circuits and Applications, Elsevier Science. Beisenbe (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your remark ("This is proved in what I submitted in a few lines of elementary vector calculus"): see wp:NOR, wp:SYNT and wp:CALC. If the claim itself and the derivation do not appear in the relevant literature, it is not for Wikipedia—by design. - DVdm (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Maxwell's equations, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Hi. I just wanted to let you know that the original research exclusion (WP:OR) is very broad and includes such things as obvious (to you) extensions of well-known equations. When you show something that is obvious to you, you may have may a mistake. Wikipedia avoids mistakes by relying on reliable sources (WP:RS). Constant314 (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Kirchhoff's circuit laws, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Your content has been removed four times from two articles because the sources are considered unreliable. Please seek a consensus on the talk page of one of these articles before continuing. Kirchoff's circuit laws is probably the most appropriate article. Constant314 (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Maxwell's true current

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Beisenbe. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Maxwell's true current, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Draft:Maxwell's true current

[edit]

If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

The page Draft:Maxwell's true current has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://ftp.rush.edu/users/molebio/Bob_Eisenberg/Reprints/2023/Eisenberg_arXiv_2023.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Beisenbe! While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for contributing to the article Kirchhoff's circuit laws. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Note in particular that we cannot use preprints or other self published documents as sources. MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reprint is under review and if published, I will resubmit. Beisenbe (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should review WP:COI before doing so. Wikipedia isn't a place to add mentions of your own work. MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is a reference that does a proper derivation, not who wrote the reference. Or a proper statement of the mathematics itself.
The present Wikipedia discussion of the Kirchhoff Current Law has no derivation or reference to a derivation that applies to modern circuits switching in nanoseconds. The Feynman discussion about constant charge does not apply to such circuits. Charge is not at all constant in such fast circuits. Beisenbe (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that we need some indication that others (that is, secondary sources) believe your new derivation is important enough to write about. Wikipedia should never be the first (or even second or third) place a result appears. COI is relevant because it tends to skew one's judgment on these matters - hence the need for independent secondary sources. MrOllie (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to miss the main points.
They have to do with what is true
and not true, not what rules Wikipedia sets for itself. The
proof involved is a proof. period.
It can be written in one line.
It is found by several AI systems
that I have used.
There are many places in many articles on the Maxwell equations, electrodynamics, etc where results are given that are not well known in the literature. What you cite as Wikipedia is simply not true in many of the most useful articles in Wikipedia mathematics.
On the nonmath side
1) The presentation of the Kirchhoff
Current Law that you had for
many years did not describe
what every engineer saw
when he measured a circuit
of say 100kohm resistors on
a microsecond time scale.
The engineer sees transients.
The classical low frequency
Kirchhoff law applied to Ohms
Law resistors does not give transients.
2) Kirchhoff's current law is used by
innumerable engineers on the microsecond
time scale. The Wikipedia treatment should
be truthful. It should describe what they see,
3) The correct derivation of the current law
is NOT mine. Several AI searches return the
correct proof. The issue is that the textbooks
have not used this proof, almost certainly because
the authors and publishers did not want to scare
readers with the vector calculus involved.
4) Someway or other, the Wikipedia article
should give, or refer to the correct proof.
I cannot figure out the Wikipedia format
for equations (it is certainly not Latex).
The proof can be written explicitly and
completely in one line although a proof
that can be read by someone with 2 years
of calculus takes a page or so.
5) The fact is that textbooks on circuits
start with Kirchhoff's current laws and do
not connect them to Maxwell at all.
6) The fact is that textbooks on electrodynamics
hardly deal with circuits or Kirchhoff's laws.
Wikipedia should not be a slave to this literature.
It should present the truth. Beisenbe (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not missed your points, I simply disagree with them, since they conflict with Wikipedia's policy requirements, including core policies such as WP:NOR. You might disagree with those requirements, but we all have to follow them nonetheless. MrOllie (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
☀Banach–Tarski paradox
The idea that a proof is needed of mathematical results should supersede Wikipedia rules. That fact is followed in mathematical articles in Wikipedia. What you say "We all have to follow them" is untrue. Many articles in mathematics present material that is not in textbooks or reviews and so is not cited. Look up "Mathematical descriptions of the electromagnetic field" or even more strikingly "Finite Element Method" or "Banach–Tarski paradox" both of which present a far deeper and at the same time more understandable discussion than in any reference exactly because they include original material.
Kirchhoff's Current Law is a MATHEMATICAL result concerning 'electricity', i.e., electrodynamics. Electrodynamics is described by a complete mathematical theory with little or no known error. Therefore Kirchhoff's Current Law should be treated as mathematics by Wikipedia. Indeed, Kirchhoff's voltage law is given with derivation and details IN ORIGINAL WORK.
I suggest the sensitivity about Kirchhoff's current law has a social origin, namely embarrassment that textbooks and previous Wikipedia authors did not know how to derive it. For a very long time the Wikipedia article presented a DC (low frequency, long time) version of the law that entirely neglected displacement current (and time derivatives). During that time Kirchhoff's current law was being used in innumerable engineering works to describe systems with LARGE time derivatives and displacement currents.
Recently, the Wikipedia treatment has vastly improved and it is no longer misleading
(except for the inclusion of nonexistent references, omission of important standard references to Ulaby and Horowitz and Hill, for example, and an inappropriate quotation of Feynman's misleading constant charge argument)
I suggest now that it simply be fixed by presenting the trivial proof of the current law, available from ChatGPT on demand that includes an EXPLCIT error term
showing how displacement current must be neglected. Beisenbe (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that a proof is needed of mathematical results should supersede Wikipedia rule Feel free to suggest a policy change. But until it does change, we're going to follow what policy is, not that you personally think it should be.
available from ChatGPT ChatGPT makes up nonsense. There is no way we can copy text it makes up into Wikipedia or use it as a source. MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point.
Mathematics articles in Wikipedia do not follow the standards you are citing. They very often present new material. Kirchhoff's Current Law should be treated as mathematics is in fact treated by Wikipedia, see Banach Tarski article, or Finite Element, etc. Beisenbe (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have found an article that doesn't follow Wikipedia's policies, that is a problem to be fixed, not a problem to be made worse by ignoring Wikipedia's policies elsewhere. You now know what kind of sourcing will be required to support the changes you'd like to make. I will not waste my time with repetitive arguments here any longer - feel free to return to the article's talk page, when the required secondary sources exist. MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Thank you for your help.
As ever
Bob Beisenbe (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]