Talk:Inductor (shielded)

I tried putting this into the article on Inductance and was challenged for its placement there. So, I thought I'd try making it stand alone. Vinyasi (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please consult the WP explanations of WP:patent nonsense to contemplate whether this 'article' should be continued. Kbrose (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinyasi: I echo Kbrose's concerns. This capacitively shielded inductor concept could be an interesting idea; I haven't come across it before, except in shielded loop antennas. I don't mean to harass or persecute you, but I am concerned whether this material meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. My concerns are in these areas:

WP:VERIFIABILITY: Did you invent this idea? Wikipedia articles cannot be based on WP:original research that has not been published. In order to be included in Wikipedia, the capacitively shielded inductor concept and all the information about it has to have been previously published in a WP:reliable source; a refereed electronics journal or book. It cannot be a WP:primary source, a research paper, but must be a WP:secondary source; a survey article or textbook (see WP:PSTS). You have provided a lot of sources, which is great, but I can't find the idea of an inductor with the conductor covered with a capacitive shield in any of the sources you have given:

Basalla has a description of a crystal receiver, but nothing about a shielded inductor.
the Chua memristor article discusses oxygen doped nanolayers, but does not mention anything about shielded inductors
the Singh, Carr, and Raisanen sources discuss coaxial cable, but not shielded inductors
the Strukov memristor article is behind a paywall and I can only see the abstract, but it is about memristors, which again are not shielded inductors. If this article says something relevant, please quote it in the citation.
Mohr crosstalk presentation discusses shielding of inductive wires, but does not discuss a shielded inductor
the [www.altera.com/literature/wp/wp_sgnlntgry.pdf Altera paper] discusses shielded transmission lines but nowhere specifically mentions a shielded inductor
the Smar EMI paper again discusses general capacitive and inductive crosstalk but nothing about a shielded inductor
the Yen Kheng Tan page is just a list of energy harvesting links. If any of these are about your topic, please give the exact link

Your image from Tesla's patent just shows a metal plate antenna connected through a capacitor to ground, not a shielded inductor. Many new editors like to refer to Tesla, as they think their ideas are somehow related to Tesla's. Capacitance loaded antennas are nothing new, and are discussed in Antenna. Tesla invented the resonant transformer, but he never experimented with shielded inductors. Besides the image is from a patent [1], and patents are not WP:reliable sources; the patent office doesn't check that the idea works or is feasible, only that it is unique, see WP:PATENTS.

the Enhants project seems to be just a brief press release about energy harvesting. It says nothing about shielded inductors or Tesla.
Tate's Ambient Power Module is about a circuit that harvests energy from a long wire antenna, not a shielded inductor, and has nothing about Tesla
the Klase page just shows a bunch of long distance crystal receivers. Elsewhere Klase does write about the importance of high Q tuned circuits in crystal sets, but again, nothing about shielded inductors.
the Tuggle article is about the design of DX crystal receivers. Again parasitic capacitance in the tuning inductor is an important issue in crystal set design, but the article says nothing about it, or about Tesla, or about shielded inductors.

You seem to be drawing conclusions from the information in these sources to support your idea. This is called WP:SYNTHESIS and is not allowed in Wikipedia. Any ideas or facts in an article must actually be stated in sources, and not be conclusions drawn by an editor.

WP:NOTABILITY: Is this material important enough to have a Wikipedia article? Again, this requires that someone besides the original author has published something about it.

I am not trying to discourage you from writing about this, I'm just saying Wikipedia may not be the right place for it. You could write about it in Wikibooks, which does not require sources. Cheers --Chetvorno^TALK 19:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not discouraging me. In fact, your thoroughness feeds me a general feeling that I have a lot of rewriting ahead of me which is expected of first timers. I relish the challenge.

But it shows how under researched my topic is from my perspective. Both of your examinations only fills me with more zest since I see this as an evolutionary affair. Thanks.Vinyasi (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you move this page to your own user space, e.g. User:Vinyasi/sandbox2, because as it stands it does not merit public display based on both technical veracity and editorial skill. You need to consult WP editing and composing standards. You cannot provide unrelated random references, especially not for single words, such as "if" at the start of a sentence. It is my opinion that the article should be flagged for speedy deletion in main space. In your own space you can experiment and develop the topic as you please. Kbrose (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article has no supporting sources, and Vinyasi has not indicated it is anything besides a piece of WP:OR. I also don't think it is notable enough to merit its own article. In electronics the term "shielded inductor" usually means an inductor enclosed in a mu metal shield to prevent its magnetic field from causing interference with other devices. ----Chetvorno^TALK 19:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support the recent deletion request of Kbrose. Vinyasi Ebay sales are not WP:reliable sources for technical articles. WP already has articles which cover the topics touched on here: Faraday shield, Shielded cable, Coaxial cable, Ferrite core, Magnetic shielding, etc. This confusing mishmash does not have any reason to exist as an article. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetvorno: Given that the article does not fit into any speedy deletion criteria and Vinyasi would probably contest a WP:PROD, your best bet is to open a WP:AFD discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you NeilN --Chetvorno^TALK 22:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The content fits perfectly into what is considered WP:Patent nonsense, as tagged, which states that: 2. Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it. See word salad. If the meaning cannot be identified, it is impossible to accurately copy-edit the text.

It is just that, physics word salad, given the appearance to mean something, but there is no logical coherence, reasoning, no referral to meaningful supporting references. The perhaps valid connections to existing circuit elements or phenomena is already covered in other WP articles, as pointed out sufficiently by User Chetvorno. Kbrose (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbrose: I basically agree. That's why I suggest merging it into Inductor below. None of the content needs to be saved in the target article; in which case the merger will have a similar effect to deleting the article. ----Chetvorno^TALK 11:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... It is not incoherent, nor does it vandalize Wikipedia. --Vinyasi (talk) 22:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinyasi: I already rejected the G1 speedy delete request. [2] There was no need to re-add the tag and contest it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Inductor?

Since the deletion request was denied, I would suggest merging whatever is worth saving in this article (if anything) into Inductor or possibly Faraday shield. There are certainly enough articles on WP to adequately cover the topics mentioned in this mashup, Shielded cable, Coaxial cable, Ferrite core, Magnetic shielding, etc. ----Chetvorno^TALK 22:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per request. Kbrose (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of merging, I suggest someone with your background and expertise write this as a subtopic included within the body of some other topic as you have suggested. I feel you're fully equipped to do this without regard to any 'mashup' or anything else not relevant to an audience whom I have not been trying to address at all, namely grammar school and the like. I've seen plenty of articles on Wikipedia which are very technical that cater to a highly specialized audience of which I am not a member. But that doesn't bother me, because I know it probably addresses the needs of someone else who can handle the added technicalities. In other words, I think we can live together with boundaries between us due, mostly, to my lack of experience in keeping a topic simple enough so that my grandmother could understand it. I don't feel a stand alone article should cater to any form of simplification. I consider reorganization as my main task before all else. But sometimes that requires more text additions including more focused references - not necessarily an act of simplification. That's the job of a subtopic. I feel that more is better, in a stand alone article, since I would be remiss if not thorough.Vinyasi (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to discuss two unrelated topics: inductors embedded in ferrite and inductors wound with shielded wire. As Kbrose said above, the article is incoherently written; so much so that it is not clear that these are completely different topics. It is completely unsourced; none of the sources support the text. Just citing a reference that uses the same words as your sentence is not providing a source. A ferrite bead is not the same as an inductor embedded in ferrite, and a coaxial cable is not the same as an inductor wound with shielded wire. None of these topics has anything to do with Tesla. Without sources there is nothing to establish that these topics are notable enough for an article. Anyway any topics mentioned here are adequately covered in other articles. Therefore I think the article should not stand; any salvageable content (probably none) should be merged into another article such as Inductor. --Chetvorno^TALK 12:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinyasi: Maybe you should take it a little slower, spend a little time learning about Wikipedia by making edits to existing articles, before creating a new article. I'd be glad to answer any questions I could. --Chetvorno^TALK 12:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chetvorno: How so? I thought all strands of wire, be they coiled or straight, were capable of inducing a reverse voltage and would behave in a similar manner regardless of their differences in geometry differing only by their impedances.

"A ferrite bead is not the same as an inductor embedded in ferrite" -- Really? Vinyasi (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no further objections, I will remove the merge tag.Vinyasi (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]