Jump to content

Talk:RONJA

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

We should stick to removing articles that are fake, demonstrate strong bias or are strictly commercial. The WP:V is somewhat irrelevant. Wikipedia is a user driven project, and the users should be free to post articles. The letter of the law (or regulations) is less important than the intent. Clearly the intent of the regulations was curb abuse while ensuring that Wikipedia remains a meaningfull repository of knowledge.

If an article is fake, biased or commercial, delete it.
If it is poorly written or in need of improvement, fix it.
If it does not interest you, is obscure or not worth your time, move on.
[michelc]

You are so right. I don't mean to be inflammatory, but I have to say that I find the discussion below ridiculous.
We have a myriad of trivia articles, but this article about a development that seems to have societal importance to me (free-software like hardware) is threatened with deletion because noone has dug up a reference yet? (from reading the article and seeing the photos, it seems obvious to me that there should be references out there).
I hope we are not getting to the point where the maintainers are beginning to obstruct the content-writers more than they are helping them, by following the letter rather than the spirit of the guidelines.
84.58.110.108 12:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]





Shouldn't it say more about what it actually does? In layman terms? Can me and the neighbour plug it in the back of our network cards to trade files and play Doom? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.17.141.53 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


It would be a good idea for a native English speaker to clean this up. The grammar is very poor in places. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.252.174.198 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the {{notability}} tag on this article because it is not apparent to me that this is a notable product. However I'm not convinced either that it's a good candidate for deletion. As the tag indicates, please establish notability if possible, citing reliable sources. If this cannot be established, it should be nominated for deletion. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be deleted. If nothing else, it's an interesting application of LEDs: I believe its mention does belong in the LED article, and there's plenty of information about it in this article. anescient 06:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, it still currently fails WP:V - no cited content from reliable sources. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of citations and reliable sources do you expect about this piece of incredible but amateur made piece of home-brew technology? It's mostly used around the globe but mostly be geeks and amateurs which could hardly be considered "reliable". :-( Maybe you should consider the number of users which is pretty high if you consider you have to build the device... -- Radek Podgorny —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rpodgorny (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Have a look through WP:V, Wikipedia's verifiability policy. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If an article fails WP:V and cannot be brought in line with it, then it must go, no matter how wonderful the subject of the article may be. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the policy and still see no violation of the rules :-(. Ronja is a piece of hardware, no question about truth or bias then. Verifiability could be in question here but as someone has noticed before, there are lots of installations around the world with photographic evidence. Google itself finds about 300 pictures for "ronja optical" and about 13000 links for the same phrase. Unfortunataly, most of them are not in English but it's still evidence. If you want citations there's only two types you can get: "It's a great piece of technology" which is biased and therefore not acceptable, or "Ronja is an optical link device" which in fact is not a citation, it's a fact. Actually, I see no citations in "pentium" article neither... Requesting citations in hardware-related articles doesn't make much sense to me. Rpodgorny 11:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails WP:V because it currently does not cite reliable sources. Again quoting from WP:V: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources". Bias doesn't necessarily have to be excluded -- for example, if a major magazine published a review of the product (or perhaps a "how to"), that might count as a reliable source. For an article to remain at Wikipedia, it must have proper sources. If such sources are not available, then again it cannot be included at Wikipedia. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ronja has been a basis of 1 doctoral dissertation in Sweden, 10 master's and bachelor's theses in USA, Europe, Asia, 3 high school graduation exams and 1 high school vocational activity. Further 4 doctoral dissertations, 16 master's and bachelor's theses, and 1 university semester project cite Ronja. Further, 12 journal, conference, and university articles and lectures are based on Ronja, and further 38 journal, conference, and university articles and lectures cite Ronja. Ronja is further quoted by 7 non-academic papers, 5 printed books and magazines, and 2 market reports. PR Newswire, a New York firm established in 1954, writes: "Invention RONJA device in 2001, which can achieve 10Mbps network speed over 0.87 miles boosted the research activities in the FSO technology." in their market report, where this quotation is available in a publicly accessible text. So Ronja is so important that it's not only included in a market report, but straight praised as boosting the activities in a whole field of technology, by an established market report firm. Furthermore, Ronja is cited by 3 granted patents and 6 patent applications. Most of all these references have full text available or Ronja is listed in the "References" section of the abstract page. Including all those references might make the reference section impractically large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.61.237 (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So now I finally understand it. Does the "reliable source" have to be in English? Rpodgorny 15:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, there's no requirement that sources must be in English, as long as they're proper citations and not just bare links. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Content of this article can be assumed as notable. This system is used in couple of APs of czfree.net ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only proof of notability can come from citations from reliable sources, per WP:V. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added two references from root.cz one with description and secodn with list of installations. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 02:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions:

--mj41 09:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronja type technology is known to a number of academics in a wide range of physics disciplines. It is only a matter of time before official developments are accepted or published in a reputable journal. Even if publication is in 1 - 2 years time, the article is still valid without citation. Private free space research takes some time to be accepted into mainstream science, as it is developed by a blend of academic and enthusiasts who may not follow established scientific protocols, due to financial or time constraints. The fact that there are several operating systems, complete with detailed and accurate schematics available, give the device credibility. I am of the opinion that the article is notable for its demonstration both of new technology, and international amateur scientific co-operation, and the existing evidence satisfies Wiki guidelines at this stage.

--Bluglass 21:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Intersofia 00:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Ronja is really known to a number of academics in a wide range of physics disciplines then you should be able to provide reliable sources to assert notability. Credibility is irrelevant, only notability as per wikipedia standards is. Also, you don't seem to understand how things work on wikipedia. We don't write article in antipaticion of the subject becoming notable in the future. We only write articles if they are noteable as of this moment. If something becomes noteable in the future then then and only then should you write an article. Having said all that, looking briefly at the sources I expect this article may meet notability requirements, barely as of this moment. But it is important that contributors understand wikipedian policies on notability. BTW, commercial or not is kind of irrelevant IMHO. Spam is spam whether it's for commercial reasons or just a misguided user or developer. Something that is non-noteable should not have an article regardless of whether it's commercial Nil Einne 15:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nil Einne, why are you being so difficult? Rules aren't for the exclusion of decent articles, it's to prevent the actual garbage from getting in. Don't be like this.--Phant 19:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah don't be a nit. Why not try writing sometime instead of hassling articles. This is a really fascinating article. Genjix (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Readibility

[edit]

I had a difficult time reading through this article. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could rewrite it with less emphasis on the technical writing and more on readibility? Perhaps an analogy could be used to explain how RONJA is like a flashin lamp transmitting Morse code, but on a larger (faster?) scale?

I don't know the tag for too much technical jargon, but I'm sure someone will. --Phant 19:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)--Phant 19:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

To understand how a FSO link is created lets first create a dual mode optical link between two generic CAT-5(copper) based Ethernet switches using fiber. A UTP/fiber converter links two switches over dual mode fiber. FSO link should be seen as a dual mode fiber converter, but instead of using a fiber cable the free air a medium is used. Ethernet standard specifies three different voltage levels output at the PHY layer. Logic circuitry only understands two voltage levels +5 and 0.

  • From the PC Ethernet port a CAT-5 cable(eight lines) connects with the Intel Lxt971Aphy, a Dual-Speed Fast

EthernetTransceiver (OpticPatents) which decodes Ethernet at the MAC and PHY layer,converting three volt levels to a binary stream (PECL levels) for a fiber interface, modulated with NRZI.

  • NRZ binary stream drives a laser or diode signal(on/off),sending light pulses at 10Meg over the fiber to a TIA(TransimpedenceAmp) such as

http://www.optekinc.com/datasheets/OPF2418.pdf. (See OpticPosts and OpticalManufacturers). The OPF2418 converts the pulses back to copper voltage PECL output.

  • The PECL from the OPF2418 interfaces with the Intel Lxt971Aphy chip at the other end, which demodulates the NRZ stream by sampling the signal in the middle of the bit and converts it back to three volt levels to interface with the Ethernet switch at the PHY layer.
  • With FSO the fiber link is replaced with the free air medium, FresnelLens, Collimator etc.
  • Take a UTP-FIBER converter commercially available for around $100 and reverse engineer the design for a PCB via BoMarc. Get hold of a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Ethernet#100BASE-SX with LED driver for a FSO design. HackPatents explains why it isn't unethical to reverse engineer circuits, copy them and then sell products bases on such designs.
  • Tx: switch cat5 -> Lxt971Aphy ->Laser/LED driver -> LED or laser diode -> Fiber
  • Rx: Fiber -> TIA -> Lxt971Aphy -> CAT5 -> switch.

At 10Meg Manchester encoding is used , at 100Meg NRZI.

  • ML6652 fiber and copper media converter
  • alldatasheet.com DM9301 fiber and copper media converter
  • LED driver is MAX3263
  • Philips SA5211 TransimpedenceAmp , post amplification stage

TIA ROSA has a RSSI voltage output proportional to the light intensity received, monitor this with A/D..

I am working on a 100 mbps design based on ML6652 and LED driver is > MAX3263 and Reciver uses philips SA5211 as transimpedance Amplifier > .Will be releasing first shematics in a day or two . I am planning to > use VCSEL laser to begin with . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.115.183.170 (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:RONJA&oldid=1205104832"