Talk:Power inverter/Archive 1

The content below is archived from the talk page of Air conditioner inverter, a stub which has been merged into this main article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 July 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

September 2007

I felt the article as it stood contained numerous grammatical errors, missing words and conveyed a confusing and unclear understanding of a common term. I re-wrote the article from scratch without content from any other source than the existing article and my understanding of the term as it's used, and it contains no unoriginal work other than parts of the previous article. It needs to be backed up with references however and I'm aiming to add some shortly. If anyone feels that this was inappropriate, or that the previous article was superior in any way to what I've written, I'd like to discuss what can be improved Nocterro 07:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

This is well written but I would add a comparison of purchasing cost as well as operation and maintenance cost of inverter ACs versus regular ACs. I heard that inverter ACs are 40% more efficient. Is this true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonnardi (talk • contribs) 13:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with source citation. N2e (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are currently two articles in Wikipedia on the topic of air conditioner inverters: this one entitled Air conditioner inverter and another entitled Inverter compressor. I propose merging the two articles into a single Wikipedia article as they cover the same topic. N2e (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT MERGE—as nom, per rationale given above. N2e (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not a vote tally. Why are you voting for your own proposal? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chill. I wasn't voting. Consensus is not reached by votes. I simply started a bulleted list showing the total support that the proposal had, which of course includes the nominator; and I clearly identified myself as the nominator.

Comment They should both be merged into variable frequency drive. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks like no consensus exists. Two different proposals, neither garnered any additional support in the past two weeks. N2e (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BRD

I reverted a recent large deletion, per WP:BRD. I think some of it could be removed right away, but probably better that most of it stay with specific citations being requested for statements we believe may not be verifiable. I have started that process by adding a few {{citation needed}} tags on material I would like to challenge. N2e (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are good reasons for removing the claims presented. The creator of this article did so to spam for Danfoss to advance commercial interest. Some claims are lacking any useful variable and verification would be impossible and other claims are controversial claims that is basically pulled out of rear and is held to high level of proof.

"extends the life of components" what components? challenge here is the introduction of additional components needed to make it work.

"and helps eliminate sharp fluctuations in the load the air conditioner places on the power supply" actually VFDs are a big source of power quality issues due.

"Ultimately this makes inverter air conditioners less prone to breakdowns" This is a tremendous sized claim that is lacking any support and this will not fly by WP:ONUS. This is getting challenged.

"cheaper to run, and the outdoor compressor is generally quieter than a standard air conditioning unit's compressor."

Omits all the relevant details. cheaper to run when? under what conditions? "outdoor compressor is quieter" under what conditions? compared to what? Trade culture may have a significant impact on total cost of ownership. In the US, what does an entire window A/C unit cost? Starts at $100 or so. What does it cost for a service call to replace a capacitor on a simple A/C unit? Easily $300. It's common practice in the US for units to have a very long warranty, but the labor warranty is short, so even if capacitor is covered under warranty, the service labor cost in whole is likely on the customer. It might work out favorably in Philippines where electricity is about $0.30 USD/kWh and labor is cheaper than US by a big margin than in the US where electricity is 10-12c/kWh and outrageously high labor costs. Inverter drives are subject to fail without notice just like electronic ballasts, switching power supplies, etc. In comparison, passive devices like motors and transformers don't generally suddenly "fry".

"In a typical setting the pay-back time is about two years (depending upon the usage). For more modern installations where an outdoor unit is connected to multiple indoor units there are better options also available." Compared to what? Under hypothetical conditions that accentuate the difference between the product being spammed such as comparing between a 1970 unit against the newest spammer's product used in a high A/C utilizing area with highest world average electricity cost? All of this non-sense is obfuscated in ambiguous cloud of "typical" There's simply no way to "verify" the claim. You can come up whatever hypothetical variables to satisfy this claim. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and you are violating the guideline to DISCUSS in the WP:BRD process following a Reversion of your Bold edit. You should have discussed, and not just reverted my changes.

I concur that parts of those claims either need to be cited, or we should remove them. That is why I requested citations on several of them. But standard policy in WP:BURDEN allows for a bit of time for the citations to be provided. If they are not, in a couple of weeks, then THAT is when we should remove the statements.

Having said that, not all of the claims were so far off the mark that I thought they even needed citations. My background in engineering (among other things) and I have also installed and used an inverter air conditioner. That is precisely why the process is to discuss following the reversion and not merely get into an edit war. In fact, while discussing, it would be perfectly appropriate for you to, for example, request citations on even more statements, statements that I left alone as I thought they were verifiable.

But making a large deletion edit, with me reverting so a discussion could occur on the Talk page, and then you taking a step toward an edit war by reverting my change prior to discussion, without allowing some time for other editors to weigh in, is poor wiki-behavior on your part.

I don't want to get into an edit war right now, so will not (right now) add back in those edits you've deleted twice. Best option for this to move forward in a most wiki-friendly and civil manner is for you to restore the page to where I left it, and then reenter the discussion. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These two content fork articles were not made in good faith. They were made as self-serving spam articles intended to serve Danfoss' interest, perhaps a PR person it hired to advance its interest. WP:BURDEN is a policy. WP:BRD is an essay which isn't the authority. I don't report to you and you're not the boss of me. You dictating what is the best option, what I need to do, whatever is my opinion is wiki unfriendly and uncivil. That spammer made the bold spam articles which were majorly reverted. Our verifiability is clear that first hand experience and anecdotes are not acceptable reference. Asserting personal opinion derived from first hand empirical evidence to supporting a claim that is obfuscated in sales pitch is just a way of avoiding having to produce proof.

"not all of the claims were so far off the mark". Which claim? Where is the mark and how far off is the claim from the reference? I'm questioning all the claims that are dependent on variables in addition to a reference point. The reference point is some arbitrary position in the story teller's head and it leaves no means of verification.

Suppose the article is about "hybrid vehicle technology". "The typical payback period of a hybrid car for average driver is 5 years". The process of scurrying conditions and different sources to say what you want to say is WP:OR. To truly evaluate the affects of the inverter type system, the affects must be substantially caused by the inverter.

These are common things in sales scum exhibitors' presentation about payback period involving energy saving capital investments. PBP maybe the duration it takes for variable cost difference between the outdated equipment and the new one to reach the break-even point. Government subsidies on new equipment applied and assume unrealistic conditions most favorable to sales pitch. Such assumption maybe if you borrow $4,800 from the bank and you save $100 a month the loan is paid off in 4 years. Lending is a charity business.

Those claims are designed to promote sales which was the bad faith intent this article was created with. Something of greater value here in my opinion is a set of sources that compare and conclude the difference between the best available non-inverter vs inverter. Another way of saying this is that we want to compare between same year Corolla vs Prius. Not 2000 Ford Taurus against 2012 Toyota Prius to evaluate "payback period". The conclusion needs to be drawn by sources. As wiki editors, we can't collect multiple sources and stitch up our own conclusion per WP:NOR. Depends on who we ask... some people on forums say that... etc also don't satisfy our verifiability requirements. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care the source of the statements (Danfoss, etc.) or what that editor's history is. I care only about which part of the content of the article is reasonably verifiable and would make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, and this article a better article.

You made a major deletion, I restored the text and added some cn tags to ask for sources on some of the more extensive statements which needed explicit verification. You should have engaged on the Talk page to discuss WITHOUT re-deleting the text; at least not until some discussion had occurred and an attempt had been made at consensus. Many of the statements you deleted are pretty tame, and largely correct as to A/C inverters, as I told you earlier. Those that needed sources would have either got them, or been deleted in another few weeks; which is why I added the cn tags to a number of claims.

As to your behavior as an editor: your behavior in this matter has become uncivil! I will call you on that.

But I don't have the time right now to get into an edit war, or a extensive debate over this particular article. So for this article, at this point in time, your uncivil behavior, which did not assume good faith on my part, has won the day relative to article content. That is unfortunate, but this is Wikipedia and I play by community standards. N2e (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am calling out the editor Danfosscc whose intention was quite obviously disseminate information and create articles tailored to the interest of Danfoss. When the intent is obviously promotion (the user name, uploading of sales photos, one sided presentation of just the favorable aspects, etc)it establishes bad faith edit. You haven't provided any argument beyond "because I said so" that his claims are "correct" and you continue to reinsert sales pitch that were inserted with promotional purpose and the subjective presentation of it for which there is not necessary a "right" answer. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect as to your accusation of my behavior when you said: "...you continue to reinsert sales pitch that were inserted with promotional purpose and the subjective presentation of it for which there is not necessary a "right" answer." I did not "continue to reinsert" anything. I reverted your Bold deletion precisely once, and per WP:BRD, went to the Talk page to discuss it. You did however fail to enter into the Discussion part of the process without first making the large deletion again, prior to discussion.

The order of my involvement went like this:

I happened along to this article. I made several edits in an attempt to improve the article. Those edits included some additions (with a source) and also some deletions of unsourced statements.
I did not know anything at all about Danfossc's user history at that time.
Some time along the way, you or other editors became concerned about Danfosscc's behavior, potenial WP:COI, etc., etc.
However, note, the Wikipedia article as it existed at that point in time is not Danfosscc's, or yours, or mine, or any other editor who might have previously edited it. It contained elements of all of that material, material that in many cases had been read over, and went unchallenged, by subsequent editors. It represented an emergent, though stubby, article on the subject of Air conditioner inverters. Was it done? Of course not. But it was a sum of its parts that was much more than merely whatever one editor, Danfosscc, might have edited in the article. And it was in that state whether or not Danfosscc had a COI at the time some of that text was initially written.
You BOLDly made a large deletion, apparently in part as a function of things you may or may not know about Danfosscc. Fine, as far as that goes. (although do note, I'm not a party to, nor involved in, the stuff about Danfosscc's editor history, etc. At this point in the process, I'm not even aware of it.)
I REVERTed that large deletion, as I thought some of it was good article content, and then initiated a discussion on the Talk page. I also added {{citation needed}} tags to several claims that I thought needed specific sources. All per WP:BRD in an attempt to have both civil discourse and also improve the article.
You could have added cn tags to other claims had you wanted to, and then followed WP:V process and allowed some time to pass before permanently deleting any unsourced material. You did not do this.
Instead, you made the large deletion again, which was the start of an edit war that I chose not to engage in. Thus, I did, in fact, only make that one reversion of your edit, and did not "continue to reinsert" material as you accused me of. Slow down and check the details before you go making bad faith charges.
You only then began discussion, insisting that your view in the content dispute was correct. As I said at the start, this violates policy for editors to work together constructively. See WP:BRD which was worked out precisely to get to good outcomes in a civil and constructive manner.
I called you on the BEHAVIOR aspect of your edits. I have removed myself from the CONTENT aspects of the debate as I don't want to be getting into an edit war with an unconstructive editor.
Net: you get the content you want on this particular article of Wikipedia's 4 million+ articles. But you also get called out on your uncivil and unconstructive behavior as a Wikipedia editor.
You may learn from this, you may not. Some do, some do not.

Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Editor Cantaloupe2 has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia; see the C2 Talk page for a summary. This, therefore, ends the BRD section discussion between N2e and Cantaloupe2. N2e (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Potential to reopen the Merge discussion at a later date

It may be useful to (some day) reopen the Merge discussion from last month. That discussion ended with only two participants, Cantaloupe2 (now indefinitely blocked) and N2e, and no consensus was reached. If, however, other editors happen along to this Talk page, and believe the Merge might be useful, please invite me back here to have a second/revised/later discussion of any Merge proposal you wish to make. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]