Jump to content

Talk:AC/DC receiver design/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

New article name

Since the previous thread was getting very long and consensus indicated not to change to the proposed article name I have started a new section to discuss a new article title. I propose the previous proposal dicussion as closed since no agreement will be had on that particular name. Let's see if some of the previous thoughts can be organized into getting closer to a new article title to replace the existing one that doesn't work for many aspects (even if didn't have electricity in it but rather electrical). I B Wright mentioned, in previous posts, about four parameters needed to fit this article and that should be a good start, but not having searched for them yet I will attempt to state the parameters I see in the topic.

  • Vacuum tubes and filaments in series adding to supply (with IR dropper if necessary).
  • No power supply transformer
  • In a receiver chassis. Is there any other equipment that did this?
  • Particular span of time (era)
  • AC/DC nickname (although none may have actually ran on DC)

Which major parameters are important to identify this article? Receiver is common base of the all equipment involved and may help stop editors dropping uninvolved equipment on the article in the future. Since an objection was raised perhaps it needs to be used as an adjective. It is a common parameter to all equipment discussed. AC/DC seems to be a well known nickname and would be a good lookup term. Time span would be unusual and probably should not be included in the title. Transformerless needs an adjective to specify which transformer e.g. without power transformer makes a long title. Vacuum tube maybe if needed to further specify. Comments? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add probably a prerequisite parameter to the list. Probably the most important point (as I B Wright has reminded several times):
  • Power Supply
174.118.142.187 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Speedy close this section the preceding discussion is not "very long" and it is the appropriate section for discussion. There have been many larger discussions that have gone through the RM process, and this particular one is short, so the entire reason for opening a new discussion based on length is wrong. At best, this would be a subsection of the requested renaming section, not a new separate discussion. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Your attempt to change the article name to Transformerless radio receiver has been shot down unanimously, in consensus above, and you were asked to not persist with this WP:POINTY line several times. The section above is done and discussion has nowhere to continue. Again you ignore key points in editors comments and only appear disruptive. Either you have not read, cannot read, or refuse to listen to advise from other editors and the lede paragraph in the article. This disruptive behavior is beginning to look like the actions of a troll. You attempted this with the article insertions, against the consensus of several editors and clearly unread lede paragraph that tells you not to do what you have repeatedly attempted to do. Your further attempts to force your WP:POINTY view at AC/DC (disambiguation) reinforces the look of your agenda, here. Please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.142.187 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you please point out where 65.94 took a position for or against the specific name "Transformerless radio receiver" as one of the multiple names under discussion? I can't seem to find it. I see "Comment certainly the current usage is highly incorrect, since it is frequently used to refer to AC and DC collectively. Only part of the article describes the term, the rest of it describes something else, the radio receiver that uses the term, but not the term in general. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)" but not an endorsement or rejection of any of the possible alternates. K7L (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
You know, you're acting incivil, since you're the one being disruptive and making POINTy accusations. I did not "attempt to change" the article name to "transformerless radio receiver", it wasn't even my suggestion. You should actually read what people write. Or do you think anyone who writes on this page and is not yourself are all the same person? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen: can we please confine the discussion to possible article names and not each other. I completely endorse 174.118.142.187's attempt to move this along. So here is my take on where we are with a suggestion or two of my own.

The move discussion is due for closure tomorrow (7 days). If no one has any valid objection, I will close it tomorrow with a conclusion along the lines "the proposed name is not accepted, but there is a clear concensus that a change of article name is required, to be discussed [in this section]".

As for the names proposed so far (slightly rearranged for convenience) and recapping on the points raised :

None of these is deemed appropriate because the article does not address radio or television receivers at all.
Not appropriate at first sight because the receivers in which these power arangements exist are not transformerless (IF, output etc.) However, I have had a rethink on this and I repropose it below with my justification and possibly a compromise.
Not appropriate for both reasons stated above.
Not a good article title. Cumbersome and is entirely adjectival.

This section should not be speedy deleted, precisely because the preceding discussion is scheduled for closure and a proper section is required for future proposals and discussion.

Can I also suggest that in order to keep the discussion on track that future suggestions are made a subsection of this discussion, and that objections and support be added underneath. I hope that this will keep the discussion on track and dissuade the critisim of other users which is totally out of place here. Also, it might make it easier to keep track of what is suggested and where. For example:

Example title (invalid suggestion)

~~~~

  • Support: For whatever reason connected to the proposal. ~~~~
Any comment on above support. ~~~~
  • Oppose: For whatever reason connected to the proposal. ~~~~
Any comment on above opposition. ~~~~

DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

But having thought about it, one of the above suggestions is useable:

AC/DC transformerless design

The subject of this title is 'design' and 'transformerless' is an adjective qualifying 'design'. It also occurs to me that the objection that there are other transformers in the receiver can easily be disposed of in the article lede. Perhaps along the lines of:

AC/DC transformerless design discusses a development in the design of the power supply section of vacuum tube based radio and television receivers, the object of which was to eliminate the bulky and often expensive mains transformer. An unitentional feature of the design was that the receiver was able to operate from a DC supply as well as an AC supply. Such receivers were consequently known as "AC/DC receivers".

AC/DC receiver design would be inappropriate because that title suggests that the article is about the design of the whol receiver, which it isn't.

AC/DC (electricity) will have to recreated as a redirect to avoid breaking existing links. I considered adding "Mains" before transformerless, but I still believe that this risks making the title too cumbersome. Thoughts and suggestions? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment The longer this is going on, the more it would appear that some compromise is going to have to be made if we are not going to retain the current title. Your suggestion could be one possible compromise. Your arguments would support an article title of AC/DC receiver design because the fact that the article addresses only the power supply can be dealt with in the article lead (and your proposed lead does this - though I would reword it slightly). There has been some support for the use of the word 'receiver' in the title. The situation would be better than the current title, though I grant may not appeal completely to everyone. Such a title, by implication, would only cover the design differences as receiver designs in general would (or should) be covered elsewhere. I B Wright (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I still believe the title needs receiver in it, but in conjunction with previous comments probably not as a noun, but as an adjective and a compromise. AC/DC is a big search item and must be included. I also believe that transformerless doesn't apply properly, here. With that in mind I would like to suggest these.
  • Receiver power supply (AC/DC) (I prefer receiver first for reader lookup)
  • AC/DC receiver power supply
  • Receiver AC/DC power supply
174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
It's probably fair to say that by the very nature of the discussion, I don't think anyone is going to get exactly what they want. How do you feel about the proposed compromises? Can you improve on them? I personally don't think that they are perfect, but if there was a perfect title, it would heve been suggested by now. 86.151.115.114 (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I am going to stick my neck out and formally propose

AC/DC receiver design

For the reasons given above.

I would reword the proposed lead slightly to:

AC/DC receiver design discusses a development in the power supply section of vacuum tube based radio and television receivers, the object of which was to eliminate the bulky and expensive mains transformer. An unitentional feature of the design was that the receiver was able to operate from a DC supply as well as an AC supply and consequently they were known as "AC/DC receivers".

I B Wright (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: If it's going to be a compromise then I will compromise between my proposal and your proposal. let's try to move this along. I take your point about disposing of the 'receiver' bit in the lede and also the implied scope. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: All the negatives about receiver not what the article was about and now we are proposing receiver design??? I would agree if design was swapped for power supply making "receiver" an adjective only. This results in AC/DC receiver power supply If I cannot sway you guys on this I will go along with it just to "get this singe off my back". 174.118.142.187 (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the world of compromise. The point about a compromise is that all the participants have to give a bit to reach an agreement. However, let's not dismiss your suggestion out of hand. Observations anyone? It may be longer, but would require less work on the lede (IMHO). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Changing my mind somewhat, from above, this title would open up topics of other circuits inside the receivers but close the entrance to other devices such as electromechanical devices that clearly are not the original intention of the article. Besides, inside the transformerless powered receiver, what else is there to discuss that won't be covered in other radio and TV articles? Special aspects, such as the B boost supplies and flyback takeoffs would fit nicely as specialties of these era AC/DC devices. The lede would require more phrases to stop entrance of CRT, backporch sync stuff and the like, that is common to "normal" receiver chassis or the article will tend to divert from its intended audience, again. I B Wright, please change the lede to read plural "...power supply sections..." to encompass the other power specialties as noted. Typos, of course. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The lede isn't set in stone yet. The suggestions are just a work in progress. Let's sort the article name out, then we can worry about phrasing the lede to maintain the current article scope. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem with that is that there still needs to be this article, AC/DC (electrical). All of the above are ideas for new articles, not ideas for this article. And as written, the current second sentence is false "This term typically described certain types of transformerless vacuum tube radio or television receivers", as AC/DC is not restricted to transformerless vacuum to radios and TVs, but to many other appliances as well. (The band evidently took their name from it being on a sewing machine.) Apteva (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd presume the sewing machine would use an AC/DC universal motor. Those turn up in various appliances and power tools as a simple means to keep motor speed independent of line frequency. K7L (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
How does that relate to the rename of this article? Please confine your discussion to the case in point and refrain from re-embarking on your personal agenda. I B Wright (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It is not a rename, it is a suggested split of this article into a new article just about the radios and TVs. Obviously (to me) this article will remain, at AC/DC (electricity), and cover all AC/DC appliances, and the lead needs to reflect that.[1] Apteva (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
To be a split there would have to be two different items in the article. There never has been and attempts to introduce more items have all been reverted as off topic to the clearly worded lede. This includes your latest attempt at going against the consensus here. Stop pushing this agenda. This discussion is clearly about article title change. This warning has been stated, here, several times now. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Since User:Apteva has only made a couple of posts, your tone appears un-necessarily agressive. Please remember to always assume good faith at all times. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
My tone was well warranted after he attempted to disrupt more by injecting more of the same WP:POINTY nonsense in the article lede, exactly opposite of the discussion he had participated in, right here, with eight recent edits. Both his edits were reverted. He won't be with us for another month for the same attitude he displayed here. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
As already stated, Apteva has made relatively minimal edits to both the article and here (and certainly not eight. Apart from a single significant reword (which was reverted), there has not been any negative activity worth getting excited about. I briefly considered that Apteva and K7L were sockpuppets (as I am certain that you may have done). However, a study of the relevant editing histories shows no other overlap (though any overlap in itself is no guide as many editors share common interests). I note that K7L did restore Apteva's reword, but as it was in pursuance of his agenda it is most likely just a coincidence (even though it was against concensus). Apteva now has a one month block for disruptive editing (elsewhere). It is interesting to note that K7L took exception to your post on that subject and deleted it. You might want to check Apteva's talk page though where he continues his rant on this article post block (and even drags the International space station into it!). K7L had no need to resort to that as he can still edit here. The other telling factor is that K7L has not advanced Apteva's absurd idea that vehicle power supplies count as a 'mains' supply.
That one (or two?) editors are being deliberately disruptive, is no real excuse to react in a similar manner. Please read the newly installed banner at the head of this talk page. This discussion appears to be heading for a possible result, so can all involved parties please focus on making some achievement (even if it is not to everyone's exact liking). I B Wright (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
No there does not need to be (this) article. Concensus above was that the scope of this article does not need to be expanded as the ability of other appliances to run from DC is entirely un-notable as there are no DC supplies to run them from. The sentence you refer to as being false is in fact entirely accurate. This circuit arrangement was known as AC/DC, even though it was not the design goal, hence this article to describe it. I B Wright (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The sentence falsely implies that "AC/DC typically" meaning "almost always" is used to describe radio and TV circuits. That is false. It is also false that there are no DC mains, as DC mains are commonly used in several applications, allowing easy connection of DC powered devices. Both 48 volt and 300 volt are common voltages used, as well as, of course, 12 and 24 volts (automotive). Apteva (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
This is disruptive to the discussion and as another reminder let me quote from above.
How does that relate to the rename of this article? Please confine your discussion to the case in point and refrain from re-embarking on your personal agenda. I B Wright (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.142.187 (talk)
And how exactly does the 12 volt battery in your car qualify as a mains supply? Ditto, the other supplies you mention. Are they generated and distributed by the supply undertaking, or converted on site. If the latter, then they are not mains supplies. Who would be stupid enough to connect a 120 volt or 240 volt appliance marked as capable of AC or DC operation to any of the supplies that you mention? In any case this has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
AC/DC receiver power supply? I could live with this idea as well. Though longer, it is perhaps more apposite. As noted, it would mean that the lead of the article would require much less attention. I B Wright (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you think "supply" would be broad enough to include the intricacies of special circuits to boost voltages unique to these receivers? It would be good to include all the specialties in these receivers in the article to fatten it somewhat. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Where exactly does an AC/DC radio have a circuit to boost voltages? If you are thinking solely of television sets, then such coverage already exists at Flyback transformer, even though it is hopelessly inaccurate. 86.144.88.101 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (1)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: To not accept the suggested title, but it is unanimously agreed that a change of title is required - this is being discussed below DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(non-admin closure)

AC/DC (electricity) → Transformerless radio receiver – In modern usage, the term "AC/DC" in electricity most often applies to the "AC/DC motor" or "universal motor" used in power tools and appliances. The original concept of a line-voltage powered transformerless radio became obsolete with transistorisation by the early 1970s and is of no more than historical interest. This sort of corner-cutting "hot chassis" design did continue in television until the 1990s, largely as a cost-cutting measure as DC mains are all but obsolete. Even there, demand for audio/video input jacks (problematic to implement if chassis ground is live) and the replacement of CRTs with LCDs have meant the long-overdue end of this design practice. The only use of DC input power in modern broadcast receivers is in AC/battery radios, which use AC or low-voltage DC (but are an entirely different beast as the voltages are not the same). One editor or a small handful of editors have been repeatedly removing information from AC/DC (electricity) to turn it into an article about the All American Five "hot chassis" tube radio (and comparable hot-chassis TV design) and remove mention of all other devices, including motors. Either the article should be about all electrical devices nameplated as "AC/DC" or the title should change to indicate this is about the five-tube transformerless AM radio receiver. K7L (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose. As suggested previously. Article name should begin with Receiver such as Receiver (transformerless AC/DC). People looking for Transformer or young readers looking for Transformers will constantly get auto-complete suggesting Transformerless... as an article when the opposite is wanted. Isn't it as simple as an anon-named account to start a new article, move all the article and talk page edits and then place a redirect here? I have seen it done many times before. The lede for this article has been clearly defined and stated since 2008, the first article creation edit. It clearly includes hot chassis television sets and definitely does not fit into the All American Five radio article. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
You appear to be proposing a cut-and-paste move, which is not permitted as it breaks the edit history (required for attribution under the CC-BY-SA free licence) and would require administrator intervention to repair. You should know better. I presume you have an account (as you are editing in such a manner as to suggest this article and anything else you WP:OWN is on a watchlist, which only registered users have) and have no idea why you are logging out to make edits to this page. Please log back in and don't copy-paste entire articles without proper attribution. K7L (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Your further personal attacks and assumptions about fellow editors are not appreciated. Please focus on content and not on unfounded personal accusations of sockpuppeting. Further disruptive editing will end back at AN/I again. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you refrain from making personal attacks and insulting tone and focus on the subject matter at hand. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 00:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
The title *is* the subject matter at hand, so the English grammatical structure of that title does matter. "Transformerless radio receiver" puts adjectives first, the pattern in the English language, while "récepteur radiophonique sans transformateur" (receiver of radio without transformers) is a naming convention from other languages where the sequence is reversed. It doesn't fit. Putting receiver first is grammatically incorrect in English. K7L (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment certainly the current usage is highly incorrect, since it is frequently used to refer to AC and DC collectively. Only part of the article describes the term, the rest of it describes something else, the radio receiver that uses the term, but not the term in general. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
No. There is no current discussion on this topic and your suggestions that the links were incorrect has triggers these edits to which I also consider correct. Your text (from above):

"Some of the existing inbound links make no sense..."

Again I suggest you adhere to the topic at hand and not use further distractions to the discussion.174.118.142.187 (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

174.118.142.187 (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

My words were "Some of the existing inbound links make no sense if you apply that sort of arbitrary scope limitation to this page." That's entirely different in meaning. Please do not continue with these misrepresentations, this is extremely blatant and dishonest. K7L (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The focus on just AC/DC receivers appears to be too narrow, and that an article on AC/DC (electricity) is warranted which is about "electrical equipment designed to operate on either alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC)." As such, if there becomes too much material on the subject, the solution is not to move the article to a different title, with a more restricted meaning, but to create a new article on that restricted subject. There are a lot of electrical items that are AC/DC, including, as mentioned, motors. Apteva (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose: As has already been pointed out, the ability of modern day electrical equipment to operate from AC or DC mains is of no interest to anyone simply because there are no DC mains supplies anywhere to warrant such an interest. The subject of the current article was seldom called upon to operate from DC mains, but it aquired the "AC/DC" description anyway (probably because it could operate from DC). Thus the article title is mostly valid for this context.
Transformerless radio receiver would be an inappropriate article title because the article does not discuss the receivers themselves but only the power supply arrangements for those receivers. The receivers are addressed elsewhere such as at All American Five. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. One would expect the title of a page to reflect the content and scope of that page. An article entitled Hot-chassis broadcast receiver would be expected not to discuss universal motors, while an article entitled AC/DC (electricity) would discuss all electrical devices which operate without restriction on line frequency. The term "transformerless" would seem clear enough that the page is specifically about the power supply. Then again, if the whole topic is as irrelevant as you indicate (as DC mains supplies are dead), perhaps WP:AFD would be in order? Another option would be to keep all of the tube radio bits at AA5 only and move this page to "Hot chassis television" as that bit of corner-cutting in design continued through the 1980s. K7L (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You have made many comments and suggestions based on forgetting about most of these were television sets chassis (transformerless). I agree, a name change is needed and I inquired about other ways to simply accomplish that. The All American Five article is only one particular unit involved in this technology history article. Perhaps the AA5 article should be incorporated here as a small subset? Either way, the name still sucks and causes lots of editing friction, but starting a name with an adjective is never a good look up for research, as mentioned previously. Is there a WP policy or essay giving title formats help? Would Receivers without power transformers work for you? It's a little long but I have never worked on a tube chassis without a transformer... output transformer. None of them are transformerless 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
There are plenty of guidelines at Wikipedia:Article titles and Category:Wikipedia naming conventions, try there? K7L (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
They all had transformers. Just not grid power transformers but radio, IF, RF, flyback, etc. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
So we seem to be stuck with the current title then. 86.130.171.165 (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Not really. The terms used in television (where this continued well into the solid-state era) were "hot chassis" or "floating chassis", as DC mains distribution was already long obsolete and the difference in peak line voltage great enough that DC operation would have created undervoltage conditions in any case. By 1970 the term "AC/DC" was either dead, repurposed to refer to AC/battery operation (usually in low-voltage transistor radios) or applied in its original line-voltage context to universal motors only. There were a few small portable television sets which could run from 12VDC (usually monochrome, or with 5" displays, at as little as twelve watts) and these used transformers to run from the AC line. The "hot chassis" television would've needed 170VDC at a fair amount of power, which did not commonly exist. If this is about "broadcast receivers" and not "electricity" (the broader term includes motors, power supplies and any electrical device), say so. The title should reflect the content of the article (and vice-versa). K7L (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Why do you persist in raising the same points over and over again where they have already been dealt with on this talk page? You can give the receiver design any name you care to, but the engineers who designed them and serviced them knew the design as the 'AC/DC' design. Both American and European manufactured sets into the 1970's were still described as AC/DC. If the specification said that they would operate from DC (which they did) then they would have had to operate correctly from such a supply, so any theory of yours to the contrary is just plain wrong. It is known (and has been stated above) that the performance of a TV would be unaffected, but a radio would have a lower audio output, though not enough to really be noticed. American engineers would never have refered to any radio ot TV set manufactured after the mid to late 1930's as a "hot chassis" set because they were not. The Underwriter's Laboratory had decreed by this time that the chassis was not to be directly connected to one side of the mains supply but an (RF) grounded chassis established by means of a small capacitor. "Floating chassis" is just an incorrect description, because they were not floating. Indeed, googling both terms throws up the former only on forums and enthusiasts' sites, and the latter with links that have no connection to this subject. European TV engineers (and I was one of them) knew the design solely as "AC/DC".
Battery/mains radios are as out of the scope of this article as when you first raised them, as indeed are transistor TV sets designed to work from a 12 volt (battery) supply as well as mains for exactly the same reason. This article is, and always has been, about the vacuum tube receiver design that eliminated the mains transformer from the power supply section. That it could have operated from a DC mains supply was incidental to the design aim and not a goal in itself. However, it was this ability that gave rise to the description "AC/DC" because receivers prior to this development operated either from AC or DC but not both. The DC may well have been a DC mains supply and several UK manufacturers did manufacture 200 volt DC radio receivers when such supplies were available. The description "AC/DC" was adopted with the first receivers to feature the transformerless design, the All American Five refered to above. I have no doubt that the marketing men had a prominent rôle to play in the adoption of a description that was un-necessary long before the receiver went on sale. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
One example of Sharp branding an AC/battery transistor radio as AC/DC is here: http://www.radiomuseum.org/r/sharp_bph_20.html This is a six-volt AM-only (medium wave) receiver. There were a few others (typically inexpensive AM/FM portables) in the early 1970s.
Do you have a source for this claim that a TV was any more tolerant to undervoltage than a radio? There was no voltage regulation in these sets and overscan was common on CRTs to hide unintended picture size variation. That much *is* sourced in the overscan article, including the variation in picture size under AC brownout conditions. Nameplating transformerless designs as "AC/DC" was a pattern from the 1950s which was utterly obsolete by the transistor era. The hot-chassis TV only died in the 1990s when A/V input jacks became standard. By then, these were nameplated as AC devices as the only DC still in common use was low-voltage battery (from which these won't run).
"Chassis ground" no longer refers to literally a metal chassis on which everything was mounted; that died with widespread use of printed circuits, wave soldering and transistorisation. This electrically-live "chassis ground" is merely the reference point for all other signals and voltages, the receiver itself is mostly plastic. K7L (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of what Sharp called their radio, it is still out of scope for this article. Concensus has already decreed that the scope will stay the way it is.
As far as supply undervoltage is concerned, the All American Five design ran from 120 volt AC or DC (the tally plate says so on all radios of this type). We know from the service sheets that the HT (B+) voltage from the rectified 120 volts AC was around 150 volts DC (unloaded the voltage from the rectifier and reservoir capacitor would be the peak voltage of 120 volts which is 169 volts but, as you note, it is unregulated and will fall with load). When run from a 120 volt DC supply, the HT voltage will be 120 volts. If the set could not run with this lower voltage, then the manufacturers could not make the claim. Exactly the same argument applies to TV receivers. Even the multi voltage ones with a tap adjuster for the ballast resistor on the series heater chain had no adjustment for the HT voltage, precisely because none was necessary. Refer to any service sheet for TVs of this type for evidence.
'Hot chassis' TV sets became rated for AC only, not because DC mains had died out, but because transformers were introduced to supply regulated supplies (particularly in colour receivers). The transformer was relatively short lived, because the manufacturers figured out how to use thyristors to provide a regulated low voltage supply direct from the mains and the 'hot chassis' made a reappearance. The thyristor supplies would not run from DC which is one reason why no claim is made. Today nearly all (if not all) TV supplies are flyback switch mode. The manufacturers cannot specify that the set will run from DC because the mains ON/OFF switch is seldom (if ever) designed to do so. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Response to IP:86 stuck We can title the article as I suggested using the style many article use to utilize the auto-complete lookup tools WP has to help researchers find related articles. We title it Receiver (AC/DC tube). There are currently many other article titles beginning with Receiver with adjectives following. e.g. Receiver (radio), Receiver (football), Receiver (information theory). This format is very common in database searches and English grammar is not applied in database tagging for research. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
"Receiver" is not acceptable as part of the article title, because the article does not discuss a receiver in any form. This has already been pointed out. I B Wright (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
While we are not discussing the whole receiver (with RF, IF, audio, video, flyback etc...) the article topic is only about receivers where this occurs. Power supplies is not complete as to the tube filaments being involved throughout the circuitry. I don't know how we can avoid the term. If we introduced AC/DC motors into this article, and the list of other equipment to follow, it would still only be about their power supplies, also. Receivers may be necessary in the title to differentiate from the other equipment. Perhaps the phrase TV and Radio but that still brings in more circuitry implications. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 12:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This is a discussion about a change of article name. Your points about the scope of the article are as out of scope to this discussion as they are to the article. Please confine your discussion to any possible name change. Discussions about the scope of the article belong in the section above (though there does appear to be litte support for such a change) 86.130.171.165 (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The two questions are inextricably linked as the article title must match the scope of the article. The user who wants an article about "obsolete 1950s AC/DC broadcast receivers" only should create it at AC/DC receiver (which has redirected to AA5 since 2006) and not AC/DC (electricity). If the topic is all electrical "AC/DC theory", the attempts to remove information on devices which are electrical and have no lower limit on line frequency (including universal motors) will remain fair game for reversion on sight. If the article is about vacuum tubes, title it accordingly.
Perhaps AC/DC (electricity) should be a disambiguation page as we already have articles on both the AA5 set and the AC/DC motors. K7L (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
You wrote, "The user who wants an article about "obsolete 1950s AC/DC broadcast receivers" only ...". You are wrong - yet again! The concensus is to preserve the scope of the article the way it is. There is only one user who wants to expand the scope of the article - you! The concensus is firmly against you. As for the article title, that is still open for discussion.
We already have an AC/DC disambiguation page. We do not therefore, require another one. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
What consensus? The universal motor has been added repeatedly, it's just one or two users who keep removing it. If you want this article to be about AC/DC radio and television title it accordingly, as there's no doubt that AC/DC motors do run on electricity. K7L (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: although I oppose the proposed change on the grounds that the receivers in question are not transformerless, I do believe that a title change is needed. Unfortunately, I have been racking my brains, but I cannot come up with anything more appropriate. Any title cannot contain the word 'receiver' or 'transformerless' because the article does not address the receivers themselves, and they are not transformerless (IF, output and deflection transformers are all present). The current title is not great, but in the absence of anything better ... I B Wright (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The most relevant title that I can come up with is AC/DC (mains transformerless), but I think it just doesn't sit right. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't "sit right" with me either because it is four adjectives and no nouns. A word specifying what equipment is needed. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with AC/DC receiver in that it would only be expected to explain how this receiver differed from any other receiver. From there, it could link to radio receiver, TV set or other articles as needed to explain the rest of the receiver, much as a laptop computer article would link to computer and then explain what was needed to make these portable and operate from a low-voltage DC source (battery or external SMPS). This article should have two sections "Radio" and "TV", each in chronological order, and the "radio" section should begin by listing AA5 as the main article for the "AC/DC tube radio" and end with transistorisation turning radio receivers into low-voltage devices. TV could then continue where radio left off, as the "hot chassis" did continue after transistorisation in CRT-based sets, ending with SMPS, LCDs and A/V input jacks which required chassis ground not be electrically live. K7L (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
[Groans!] I see two things wrong with AC/DC receiver. The first is that (as has been pointed out by both myself and at least one other editor on several occasions) the title is inappropriate because the article is not about the receivers themselves. The second is that had you previewed your post before saving it, you would have noticed that your proposed title is a blue link indicating that the title already exists (albeit as a redirect). The rest of your post is still attempting to rescope the article far beyond what even the current title sugests despite concensus already being reached that that is not going to happen. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware of {{db-move}} which would make the redirect go away so the title could be re-used if desired. The rest of my post says that SMPS replaced the hot-chassis design - not that SMPS can (or can't) run from DC. Likewise with the transistors. I see no rescope here. K7L (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Since concensus has determined to leave the article content as it is, why mention them if you are not still pushing your agenda to include them? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Chasing anyone with a contrary viewpoint away from this article by removing their content repeatedly does not constitute "consensus". K7L (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So far, this appears to be the list of proposed names:

Quite the collection. Certainly "(electricity)" in the title is too broad unless the attempts to limit the article scope to something other than that in the title (such as by removing every electrical device other than tube radio/TV) stop, but this list will need to be pared down to a few viable options. K7L (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
A non-admin closure (especially one by an involved, non-neutral party) is premature if discussion to select a new title is still ongoing. Perhaps this should be relisted but with "TBD" (or the top few suggestions) in the destination title field? K7L (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
This move request was for a specific article title which has almost unanimously been rejected. The discussion below is now focussed on finding a suitable alternative title. In view of the almost unanimous rejection of the proposed title, closure of this move request was appropriate. I did call for objections but none were made. I note that you were actively editing between the call and the closure so you could have objected at that time. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved to AC/DC receiver design. This option seems to be narrowly preferred. --BDD (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

AC/DC (electricity) → AC/DC receiver design or AC/DC receiver power supply (TBD) – Relisting as previous discussion shows strong support for a move but did not reach consensus on a proposed title. As currently titled, AC/DC (electricity) would be a broad topic covering the Battle of Currents and AC/DC theory in general. The "AC/DC" nameplate has appeared on a wide variety of electric equipment, from the All American Five vacuum tube radio to universal motor power tools and appliances to a very small handful of transistor-era AC/battery devices manufactured after DC mains distribution was long forgotten. That doesn't match what's currently in the article: a discussion of a "transformerless" vacuum tube AM radio (the power transformer is eliminated by operation directly from the rectified mains voltage) and the corresponding "hot chassis" television receiver. The title needs to match the article. --Relisted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC) K7L (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

(Moved from section above but not reworded.) There are currently three definitive supports for AC/DC receiver design and three implied supports for AC/DC receiver power supply. Which one are we going for? My personal preference is for the former but there isn't much in it. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

There's another possible title I haven't seen discussed, AC/DC equipment. There may be very good reasons why not and I'm certainly not going to campaign for it, I just mention it in case it's been missed by accident. It would require only a very slight change to the opening sentence. NebY (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest and contribution. I personally think that AC/DC equipment is not going to address the problem with the current title in that it suggests that the article scope is wider than it actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DieSwartzPunkt (talk • contribs) 15:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for AC/DC receiver design. I would just about be prepared to support AC/DC receiver power supply if consencus were to go this way, but I should make clear that it is not my prefered choice. I B Wright (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for AC/DC receiver power supply based on other editors complaints against the article title suggesting the article is about the whole receiver and this is a change of heart for some now. Receiver AC/DC power supply would still be my preferred order of title for search purposes. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose "AC/DC receiver design" for the reasons given above (i.e. the article is not discussing the entire design of such a receiver).
  • Oppose "AC/DC receiver power supply" because it implies that the article is discussing something separate from the actual receiver (much like power supplies with modern electrical goods). 86.149.78.201 (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Did you take into account the proposed compromise where it was suggested that the choice of a non ideal article title (in the absence of an ideal title) would be dealt with in the article lead? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah No. I can't say the proposals are perfect. Is it not possible to find something more appropriate? 86.130.173.90 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Support something along the lines of "AC/DC equipment" as the article is focused on equipment using AC/DC power and is not focused on AC/DC electricity itself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the debate. Do you support either of the two proposed titles? The problem with AC/DC equipment is that it is suggesting a wider scope for the article, something that has already been decided against. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I meant for "equipment" to be "receiver" something or whatever, more specific. I don't have a specific view, but agree that equipment is too broad. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There has been no further discussion for over 7 days.

As things stand (and assuming that K7L's proposal is a support for either of the suggested titles) we have 3 supports for AC/DC receiver design and 2 supports for AC/DC receiver power supply. There is also SmokeyJoe's implied support for either title. It is a close call and it would be useful if K7L and SmokeyJoe indicated which of the proposed titles are their preference. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks DSP. This needs to conclude and I see you have notified other contributors. Should the other users expressing outside the two choices opinions, in this latest section, be notified, or could that possibly introduce more deviation and confusion from the two choices? Outside options should be rejected at this stage but they could be given the input option. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
A fair point. I shall notify NebY. I am not sure I can notify 86.130.173.90 because I cannot state with certainty that that IP address is still valid for that user but he has indicated that he is not happy with the proposals, though he did withdraw outright opposition. Once this is settled, it will almost certainly have to be a non admin closure (even though the policy discourages it) because, if past performance is anything to go by, we will wait forever for an admin to close this off. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AC/DC_receiver_design/Archive_2&oldid=1136484009"