User talk:StuFifeScotland

QUESTION I saw your entry concerning eddy currents. I was hoping you could answer a question. I am not a scientist or electrical engineer, but I do have some rudimentary education in EE and electrical systems. My question concerns an eddy current braking (ECB) or resistance system used in an elliptical cross trainer fitness machines. Specifically, will an elliptical machine with and ECB designed for use on 220V/50Hz electrical systems (Europe and Australia) function on the US 110V/60Hz electrical system and vice-a versa? I know that electrical motors can not be used on differing frequencies (e.g. a motor designed for 50Hz will burn up if used on 60Hz power - same for 60Hz motors used on 50Hz power). Are ECB systems similar in this respect to electrical motors? I am afraid to test this as it could be an expensive experiment on my elliptical trainer...I have inadvertently burned up some electrical appliances, forgetting the motors were wound for 60Hz and using them on 50Hz. Thanks and look forward to your response! Thanks! Jwachee (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, StuFifeScotland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Red Director 16:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright for Monty Hall image

Hi - I don't know if you've been watching the ruckus at talk:Monty Hall problem about the cartoon image you created (if so, I applaud you for refraining from commenting), but there is a problem with the copyright of the image. When you uploaded it, you identified it as Public Domain, but according to http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/HP030900871033.aspx there are definite restrictions on use of the clip art images found in the Office applications. I'm fairly certain this means that this particular image cannot be public domain, so it should be deleted (or replaced with one that does not have any copyright encumbrance). Regardless of how the ruckus turns out, please either create a new image that does not use a Microsoft clip art image (the issue is the "thinking guy") or request that the image be deleted (add {{Db-author}} to the image description page). Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MontyHallProblemMadeEasy.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MontyHallProblemMadeEasy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gazpacho 09:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt your good faith, but the reasoning that the image presents is flawed, even if the conclusion is correct. Two doors are always opened in the Monty Hall problem, regardless of what the contestant decides. I passed through the Monty Hall problem article a few days ago and put the image back in, because I remembered it being there when the article was featured. A heated argument ensued among other editors, filled with insults and other shameful behavior. I think everyone inolved has some issues to work out, but in any case I don't think there's any further use for the image. Sorry. Gazpacho 09:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am content that the image has been deleted because I was not aware that MS clipart was copyrighted for this kind of use. On the wider point, I now steer clear of the MHP article because it is dominated by obsessives whose aim is to give the impression that the problem is inaccessible. The reasoning within the cartoon was not 'flawed', but simple, sound and intuitive, which is why they were so rattled. The cartoon was not pitched at those who are academic enough to convince themselves of the solution directly, but at those who need to look at the problem by an alternative route. The hypothetical thought process in the cartoon fulfilled its pedagogical purpose. A good Wikipedia article would find a place for it. StuFifeScotland 13:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]