Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

Icon usage

• {{subst:icon|info}} - important facts
• {{subst:icon|keep}} - keep work
• {{subst:icon|merge}} - merge work
• {{subst:icon|transwiki}} - copy to another wiki
• {{subst:icon|delete}} - delete work
• {{subst:icon|redirect}} - delete and redirect
• {{subst:icon|comment}} - neutral opinion

Undeletion

Add a new entry

Pages and books can be deleted by administrators. These decisions are generally backed by consensus from a discussion on this page under the deletion section. No process is perfect, and as such, pages or books can be nominated for undeletion in this section. The following is the procedure:

1. Locate the page entry in the deletion log or the archived discussion. Some deleted pages have been speedily deleted without discussion.
2. Review the Wikibooks:Deletion policy and Wikibooks:Media. If you can build a fair case on something which wasn't considered before, you can raise the issue here.
3. Please add new nominations at the bottom of the section. Include a link to the archived discussion (or deletion log if there was none) and your rationale for why the page should be undeleted. If the community agrees, the page will be restored.

If you wish to view a deleted module or media file, list it here and explain why. An administrator will provide the deleted module to you in some form - either by quoting it in full, emailing it to you, or temporarily undeleting it. If you feel that an administrator is routinely deleting modules prematurely, or otherwise abusing their tools, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Administrative Assistance.

Subscribe[subscribe]Minesweeper

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Subscribe[subscribe]LaTeX/Internationalisation

"Internationalisation" is the British spelling for "internationalization". Redirects are cheap, so not sure how this classifies as broken or unnecessary when it can be potentially useful. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 09:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@MarcGarver: Given you deleted this, any thoughts? SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 09:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't have redirects, as a rule, that are simply to support different spellings. But I don't really care about this one - so if they want it back, they can have it. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 09:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletion

Add a new entry

Pages that qualify for speedy deletion do not require discussion. This section is for discussing whether something belongs on Wikibooks or not for all other cases. Please give a reason and be prepared to defend it. Consensus is measured based on the strength of arguments not on numbers. Anyone can participate and everyone is encouraged to do so.

Please add a new request for deletion at the bottom of this section with a link to the page or book in the heading and a justification. Also place the {{rfd}} template at the top of the page you want deleted. If you are nominating an entire book, {{rfd}} goes on the top-level page, but not subpages. Nominations should cite relevant policy wherever possible.

Please format the heading as == [[PAGE]] == in order to let the bot archive it. If there is a subject box, type [[PAGE]] into the subject box.

Subscribe[subscribe]General Internal Medicine

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Subscribe[subscribe]Transwiki:Termina,Transwiki:Spectacle Rock,Transwiki:Zelda franchise strategy guide/Locations/Lost Woods,Transwiki:Lost Woods,Transwiki:Gerudo Valley,Transwiki:Subrosia,Transwiki:Lon Lon Ranch,Transwiki:Koholint Island

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Subscribe[subscribe]Subpages of English-Hanzi

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Subscribe[subscribe]My wikibooks

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Subscribe[subscribe]Suicide/Suffocation

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Subscribe[subscribe]Chess_Opening_Theory/1._e4/1...d5/2._exd5/2...Qxd5/3._Nc3/3...e3

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Subscribe[subscribe]SEWTHA2.0

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Subscribe[subscribe]Transwiki:Visual Basic 6 to .NET Function Equivalents

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Subscribe[subscribe]Developing A Universal Religion

Transwiki to Wikisource. This book by User:David Hockey survived VfD in 2005 (Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Developing A Universal Religion) but it should not have. Another VfD is from 2006: Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Purpose, for what was part 3 of the book. The book was originally uploaded as four separate parts, located at Thinking And Moral Problems, Religions And Their Source, Purpose, and Developing A Universal Religion.

The book contains multiple inaccurate claims and its title makes it unsuitable for Wikibooks. Material in Wikibooks should strive to be factually accurate and neutral, which this book cannot be. Since this book by David Hockey was previously published, and there is a pdf to check the text against (File:Developing a Universal Religion Parts 1-2-3 & 4.pdf), it can be hosted on Wikisource.

The book presents a philosophy of the purpose of life and ethics, not a religion. The book does not involve God or gods except that it portrays evolution and the life on the Earth as a quasi-god for being alleged potentially omnipotent and by its occasional capitalization of "life" as "Life". It is not true that any philosophy of purpose of life is a religion and the book does nothing to distinguish itself from philosophy as a religion.

The book's key tenet is that we should adopt as a surrogate purpose of life to "support life’s continual evolution and focus upon helping it to achieve an omnipotent ability". There is nothing factually neutral about this idea; it is one person's philosophical position. And it is not just a minor part of the book that can be edited away; it comes in part 3 and is built upon in part 4. This follows from Developing A Universal Religion/Looking For A Purpose/What Purpose Can We Use?: "Given that there is no detectable purpose pre-designed into life or the universe, then, if we must have one, we must adopt a surrogate. To my mind, the only viable option is to support life’s continual evolution and focus upon helping it to achieve an omnipotent ability. Such a purpose is universal and rational; it is a purpose that will last as long as life itself lasts. It accommodates the whole of life, and shows that we care about more than just our own well-being. It declares that we value life for its own sake and think little about the death that must follow, taking it simply as the price to be paid for living."

The book contains multiple dubious claims about life's omnipotent potential. There is nothing factual about it: not only can life not become omnipotent but it cannot become nearly omnipotent either. To begin with, given our current knowledge, there is no chance life could ever inhabit planet Pluto and the book does not support this idea in any way; and there is no way life can spread from the Earth to the Earth's nearest star given our knowledge. One can find multiple such claims and I will quote just one: "This omnipotent consequence of evolution is just that—a consequence." It is trivial to come up with capabilities that life including humankind may never achieve; one needs just a little bit of imagination. The argument that our ancestors could not have imagined our present capabilities has very little force to support the idea of future near omnipotence. It is obvious but you can read more at Quora: Is evolution omnipotent?.

The book examines some of the ethical consequences of its proposed ultimate purpose, e.g. in Developing A Universal Religion/Determining Moral Behaviours/Killing. Its examination in unconvincing. For instance, it says "The rationale for stating that it would be wrong to kill an individual is easy to state: any individual’s actions may contribute to the objective of supporting Life’s continued evolution, thus each life is valuable and should be preserved", but it is not obvious that each and every human including those severely disabled can contribute to Life's continuing evolution, so it does not follow that each human life should be preserved. Those following the stated purpose could decide to exterminate a technologically weak nation and take its resources and there is nothing obvious in the stated purpose to prevent them from doing so; the author does not seem to realize that.

As for the previous VfD:

• As for the book being "well written": It may be fairly well written from a stylistic perspective, having been created by a single author outside of Wikibooks and published, but it is not well and plausibly reasoned as shown above.
• As for "Looks like a real book to me": It surely is a real book, which alone does not make it includable in Wikibooks.
• As for "There are formal footnotes and references to other sources that have at least some academic credibility." Footnotes and references do not save the book from being non-factual and non-neutral, and the whole of the text is nowhere close to being referenced using Wikipedia's referencing standard. The few references scattered throughout the book do not save the book content from criticism.
• As for "This is a philosophy book, and that can be tricky to work with, I know.": Most philosophical books ever published do not fit Wikibooks since they are not neutral and their factual accuracy can be disputed. Philosophical surveys can be made to fit, though, mostly in the form of "some authors argue that X, other authors argue that Y".

The stated problems with the book cannot be addressed by collaborative editing, starting with the observation that it is not about religion and that it depends on a posited purpose that is not neutral. It should not stay in Wikibooks. Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Make it rain wikisource! Wikisource tastes good in pasta. ^L10nM4st3r / _{Roar at me} 22:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I will move it and its subpages via s:Special:Import only one at a time. Please be patient unless someone has any better way.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 04:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky, L10nM4st3r:Please see s:Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mass_import_from_Wikibooks with an objection that the book might not be acceptable there. I am not exporting yet.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 19:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Subscribe[subscribe]GRE/All about education in USA

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Subscribe[subscribe]DSST

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Unsubscribe[unsubscribe]Free Energy does not Exist

This is unsuited to Wikibooks. It starts with a contention that accepted physics is false and asserts pseudoscience to claim that free energy can be created from nothing. This is outside the scope of Wikibooks which, while more tolerant of original research than Wikipedia, does not accept out-and-out made-up-at-school stuff like this. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

“... and asserts pseudoscience to claim that free energy can be created from nothing.” MarcGarver is correct as far as loaded coils are concerned. Took me until now to deduce that the use of standard techniques for loading motor coils won't work with my type of circuit since it is not standard. So, I had to use something more severe. I discovered that a full diode bridge works just fine! Thanks, Marc, for challenging me to grow. I doubt I would have otherwise. -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 05:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Where did I go wrong in leading you astray? Specifically? For, I never make those claims by intention. Physics is not false. Yet, our misunderstanding of Free Energy oftentimes leads to the popularization of flamboyant statements which ignore the exception to the rule that the conservation of energy within Noether's Theorem cannot apply itself to frames of temporal reference which change. This alteration of temporal reference must occur whenever current is inverted from voltage arising from non-digital (analog) techniques involving: coils, capacitors, spark gaps, etc.

Please draw my attention to where I have claimed that: "free energy can be created from nothing", for I am not aware of having ever made that statement. I always claim that "more can be had from less" through the recycling of reactance per half-cycle of oscillations since reactance is not energy (it is lossless) and, thus, the conservation of energy has no jurisdiction/relevancy over the reversal of current (relative to voltage) until said reversal meets up with simple (non-reactive) resistance by which this value of "negative watts" gets converted into "positive watts".

If anything, I claim recycling lossless reactance gives the ‘’appearance’’ of more output resulting from the ‘’appearance’’ of less input without it actually being the case!

Quote:

We can avoid being charged for our energy usage by recycling its electrical reactance to such a degree of excessive conservation that a mere factor of 99% reuse (for instance) constitutes a 100 to 1 gain (of output versus input) without any violation of physics.

Six years of independent research does not amount to made-up-at-school stuff.

Fringe science is useful. I'd be more intrigued if you wrote a book of your own countering all of my claims with counter-claims of your own. That would be science (if I am not misquoted) and a quid pro quo: a give and take.

Your contentions are too vague for merit. Please be more precise.Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 16:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

You've made the point yourself "Six years of independent research". This is therefore Original Research, out of scope for Wikibooks and is actually eligible for speedy deletion. As for your contention that we are all too stupid to understand you, I suggest you are struggling with the ability to understand the policies here. Even if what you are writing is TRUE the fact that you yourself did the research and it isn't part of accept science = it is out of scope and will be deleted. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 09:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Delete Wikibooks isn't a host for nonsensical rouged content. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 07:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Granted, I got a little carried away with myself enjoying the process of elaboration if that’s what you mean by “rouge”. Since you misspelled “nonsensical”, I can help you out by locating the crux of my discussion in case you overlooked it…

The section: Mathematical Consequences and the subsection: What’s reversal of current good for?Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Everyone makes typos; WB:AGF. That still doesn't change my argument nor does it change my point. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 11:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

How can I engage you in good faith if you don’t even bother to read the section that I pointed out to you was the whole reason for me posting this Wikibook irrespective of its embellishments? Why are you ignoring my suggestion to focus on the math? And why are you bringing up deletion, now, when you could’ve said some thing about any errors, beforehand? Don’t you have something to contribute instead of just hitting the red button? Normal behavior, which could solicit trust, would be to work with me - not against me. By initiating deletion before offering any constructive criticism on the book’s talk page you destroyed good faith. What am I supposed to possess faith in? Your ability to perform damage without cooperation? What arguments? You don’t back up what you claim with examples from wherever you are pulling your arguments from. You’re not focusing; you’re just making unqualified statements directed at nothing in particular except the book and it’s entirety but not against any citations within its content. So let’s talk about the title since that seems to be the only thing you’re arguing against? You can’t be arguing against its content since you haven’t brought up anything in particular within the content to focus on. So, let’s discuss the title. What’s wrong with the title? Do you think that the title is not backed up by the content? I don’t understand why you think electrical reactance is pseudoscience. Just because it’s not physics? This is not a book about physics; it’s about the simulation of electrical engineering.

I added this book to a shelf: Category:Shelf:Strategy_guides since it already gives strategy advice for working with video game-like simulations of electric circuits and how to produce gainful results. Since you have already stated how this book is inappropriate to position it here, within Wikibooks, professing to be a book about physical circuits when it is actually basing its conclusions and advice upon simulations of virtual-reality game-like circuits, then what do you think of my resubmitting it over at StrategyWiki and removing it from here? Or, merely adding this new shelf: Category:Shelf:Strategy_guides? And/or removing the other shelf of: Category:Shelf:Electric_circuits_series?Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 16:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I placed a warning under Synopsis ...

WARNING — These criteria are intended to garner success under simulation and usually within the context of the Berkeley SPICE family of simulators (but not all the time; other simulators are, also, useful depending upon the situation). Although they are supported by standard mathematical criteria describing the conventional engineering of electrodynamic theory, they are not intended to qualify the physics behind these simulated strategies. That implication is left to the reader to vindicate, or not, through verifiable experience at your own risk of safety and success. User, beware.

...as well as modifications to the text within that section to reflect this book's new status as a simulation of virtual reality.Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 18:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Do simulations clarify rounged content? "Rouged", as in: "don't get people's hopes up to unrealistic expectations when it comes to them considering building any of these simulations which I rely upon as my citations for virtual strategies?" Isn't my lack of clarification the cause of what these various complaints, here, are all about?Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I think my addition of a stern WARNING within the Synopsis section satisfies any need for a neutral point of view since I know of no one, other than myself, who has ever bothered to simulate "reversal of current among severely starved analog (not digital) circuits" who is able to contribute a point of view. Hence, any complaints made as to this book's content is not going to be helpful unless someone contributes the results of their experimentation along similar lines. But I'm still capable of making mistakes of presentation especially since I am one-of-a-kind making it that more difficult for me to engage my audience without "leaving them behind in the dust" of what-the-heck-is-he-talking-about. Hence, there is a very real need for collaboration. Anyone disagree?Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 23:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Added another warning, this time in the form of a preamble at the very beginning.Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 05:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe I should have named this wikibook, "Free Energy does not Exist. Yet, Politicized Science does exist!"?Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 01:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Nominators for deletion are invited to join the conversation: Wikibooks:Reading room/Assistance#How do I improve my wikibook, or is it impossible to improve it?

"Deletion is not inevitable. I don't see a problem with the book but maybe the person who tagged it for deletion can share their thoughts."--Xania ^talk 04:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC) -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 18:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vinyasi: Let me ask this: in your "Mathematical Consequences" section, you try to find $(A+iB)^{2}$. Are A and B matrices, vectors or what? You then perform cross-product on them, but isn't matrix multiplication an inner product operation? Also, where are you getting your theories from? Can you cite relevant sources that describe what you are trying to say in your book? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Leaderboard ...

in your "Mathematical Consequences" section, you try to find ${\displaystyle (A+iB)^{2}}$.

Are A and B matrices,...?

No.

vectors, ...?

No.

...or what? You then perform cross-product on them, but isn't matrix multiplication an inner product operation? — This is not applicable since these are not matrix computations.

"A" is the real coefficient of a complex number.
"B" is the coefficient associated with the imaginary term of a complex number.
Both of these, namely: this format, could be considered equivalent to a linear polynomial of two terms: a real term and an imaginary term.

So, their double cross product is just two of the possible combinations resulting from finding: ${\displaystyle (A+iB)^{2}}$. The other two products are the squaring of the "A" term and the squaring of the "iB" term (which, in the case of electrical engineering, "i" would be replaced with the symbol of: "j").

All of this squaring business is for a purpose...

The inversion of the phase of current relative to the phase of voltage has to come from somewhere. From where does it come?

It comes from the squaring of the imaginary term of a complex number if the inlet, the input port, of a circuit's real voltage is kept extremely low. Or else, it comes from a spark gap flashing ON.

The squaring of a complex number happens during each cycle of calculations for determining the outcome of a circuit per time-frame when that circuit also contains reactive components.

Since I have discovered from six years of simulated trial and error that a reactive circuit fed a starvation diet of input voltage through a single portal of inlet – with no other chance for escape since any other outlet is not made available to this type of circuit (unless I gain the skillfulness of getting away with having additional grounded escape outlets while retaining this second requirement of restrictive throughput to disallow the formation of a normal direction for current to flow), then this type of circuit has a high likelihood of succeeding in producing a runaway condition of output surging at a rate which is faster than the thermodynamic rate of decline imposed by conventional experience.

Maybe I did not make this clear in the text? Since you asked, then I have to assume that I am not clearly stating the situation to prevent your confusion.

Also, where are you getting your theories from?

When students of electrical engineering are taught how to perform the same calculations that a simulator performs upon a "live" circuit (such as the format of equations taught at Khan Academy; I'm sure there are other locations), and when a simulator can do this for me without me having to do them, myself, then simple logic is staring me in the face that answers the timeless question, "From where does free energy come from if not from the loony bin of fantasy?"

Can you cite relevant sources that describe what you are trying to say in your book?

I remember reading (somewhere) that a voltage source is equivalent to voltage regulation; that the amplitude of a voltage input is directly related to its ability to regulate the voltages of a "live" circuit and prevent reactance from becoming a positive feedback. This positive feedback is what I design my simulated circuits to possess in which the inductive and capacitive reactances of each cycle, or half-cycle, of the circuit's oscillations become the inductances and the capacitances for each subsequent cycle, or half-cycle. This is where reactive impedance becomes our friend: under conditions of starvation (stimulating a circuit without feeding it any significant amount of power) and a restricted throughput (to discourage the formation of current) produces a backlash similar to the short-lived responses of a diode whenever voltage polarity switches and just before the diode cuts off the flow of current. This backlash is the inversion of current whose sustained consequence is the increase of voltage differences rather than their thermodynamic equalization.

This, then, is what constitutes electrical free energy if power factor conversion (of the inverted current) is taken care of (such as through a simple resistive load or a full-bridge rectification involving a square formation of diodes).

So, unless I overlooked something, I am missing two citations...

1. Khan Academy
2. Equating the term, of: "Voltage regulation" with the term and function of a: "voltage source".
3. And a hole of knowledge never fed to budding students of electrical engineering, but can only be gained by their experience.

This third point I bank on since I am one of a kind. I have no one's quota of expectations to fulfill, but my own, which is: to make discovery and share.

Capacitors are always placed in parallel across inductive loads to save energy and stabilize its usage

Electrical engineering goes to a lot of trouble avoiding surges. They are never studied except how to subdue them as quickly as possible. They are certainly not studied for their value of renewability unless its according to prescribed plans already in use, such as: synchronous generators/motors, or a simple capacitor placed in parallel with a motor (see, screenshot, to the right).

Anyone who has studied math knows that there are infinitely various approaches to a solution of a problem. And electrical engineering is heavily engrossed in the math which models their subject.

The study of physics kills this incentive to find a solution by telling us that we can't discover anything new, or old and forgotten. But this limitation is intended for little children. It is not relevant to adults – if by adult, is to suggest someone who can think for themselves.

Conservation of energy does not pertain to reactive power since reactive power is not power; it is merely reactance. It cannot be conserved under the circumstances outlined, above, since it is not being "stored" and then "released" to, and from, inductors and capacitors. It is being "reflected" without storage and without discharge. Storage and discharge would entail a delay due to an assumption of "energy" being transmitted from one component in a circuit to every other component. This delay prevents overunity of output.

This "reflection" is what diodes do on a momentary basis. But if inductors and capacitors can be induced to do this as well, and in a sustained manner, then inductors and capacitors become analogous to the reversal of current inside of a spark gap with the added advantage of manipulating amplitude and frequency to a much better degree than the limitations of a spark gap could accomplish all alone and by itself without any assistance from inductances and capacitances outside of itself.

So, ... Is this Original Research?

You can bet that it is! Where else are you going to find this except from personal experience: yours and mine. You're not going to find this in a book or from taking a class due to it being against social protocol of a well-regulated society. Just as operating from the assumption that you have to calculate the requirements of a load and feed it that much, plus a little extra (to cover thermodynamic inefficiencies), will suppress reactive feedback, likewise do we seek an authoritative answer outside of ourselves with similar results of missing opportunities of self-discovery.

Did I miss something?

Thanks for asking. -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 22:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Leaderboard, I forgot to mention...
Electrical engineering always allowed for free energy circuits by renaming them: unstable. In other words, "energy IN does not equal energy OUT" defines an unstable circuit in which you can't predict the output based on the input, alone (ignoring the ability for a shift in time due to electrical reactance disqualifying Conservation of Energy under Noether's Theorem). Thus, Conservation of Energy is not a law so much as it is a yardstick by which circuit topologies are measured to determine a circuit's type. If a circuit's output is unpridictable (based on its input, alone), then it is unstable since its output was not conserved within the boundaries imposed by its input. Type-casting is not disallowance; it is merely prejudice.

Considering how unstable circuit simulators are (due to their consistent use of matrix algebra as a shortcut for calculating a circuit's outcome), simulating an unstable circuit within the context of an unstable simulator yields "matrix is singular" error messages more often than not. Only stable circuits yield predictable outcomes. Simulators find no fault with these types of circuits.

Using an inherently unstable simulator to calculate a circuit's behavior is a predisposition (ie, prejudice) towards favoring stable circuits since only stable circuits will pass through this artificial, manmade act of filtration without coughing up and freezing in mid-stride. This is not due to some Law of Nature. It is due to flagrant social engineering. -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 03:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, @Leaderboard. There are relevant citations. Giving it some more thought, and engaging in a little brush-up reading, I remembered something I read a few years ago and added one sentence with two references attached to my wikibook's subsection ...

Free Energy does not Exist#Block Diagram

quote...

This situation is best described as when an open IDEAL transmission line is terminated by a shorted IDEAL transmission line encouraging the formation of a purely imaginary impedance at the input. -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 01:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Leaderboard

Can you cite relevant sources that describe what you are trying to say in your book?

FYI: Yes, I can (now)!

MrPreva, on YouTube, makes a good case for the reversal of current using a shorted step-up/down transformer. Although this is not overunity of output, it is a significant first step of simplicity! His video has been translated into English (from the Russian) by MrJohnK1 and comments have been offered by Chris Sykes among others. When simulated within Paul Falstad's electronic simulator, an ideal condition manifests in which the wattage of the A/C source shifts most of its power into the negative side of its virtual oscilloscope tracings throughout each cycle of oscillation. This goes beyond the mere recycling of reactive power via the use of a capacitor placed across an inductive load (in the screenshot, up-above, of recycled reactance). -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 17:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Comment: You can call me completely stupid for this (Go on, I won't deny it - just don't make fun of me), but I am totally confused... Would it have been simpler just to say "this is original research on power simulation games"? That's just about all I caught... ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 20:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@L10nM4st3r You pegged it accurately and succinctly. Yes, it would have been simpler, but not as interesting since I am a curious fellow who wants an explanation as to "why it is" and "how it is" as well as "what it is" plus "who cares?" and what does history have to say? Good ideas are always rediscovered no matter how readily they keep getting forgotten since good ideas are eternal ideas which can never entirely die! And I want feedback from other people who are, and are not, like-minded to fertilize my understanding so that I can grow and not merely feel comfortable. "Challenge me" is my motto. But it's more than a mere game since, by posting it, and researching it (online), I bump into people whose experiments may help me understand. Take my latest foray into the work of MrPreva for instance. I never would have discovered him had I not been assembling a slideshow the other day and needed slides of shorted coils. That led me to his shorted transformer video. His data, and its simplicity, blows me away – especially since he did his experiments on the bench while I am limited to performing them under simulation. Yet, my limitation does not hamper me from appreciating his handiwork. Far from it! Thanks for asking ... -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 09:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Changed vote - see belowI think I vote to delete, because of WB:NOR. You said it yourself twice: it was your own research, and there are no reliable (non-primary, and non-original-research) sources for it. If you want to post it, post it somewhere that accepts original research. That's my opinion, and I hope you consider it. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 10:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Read that link. OR seems to be accepted at Wikiversity - "Wikibooks also allows instructional guides, but that resource doesn't allow original research" - which indicates OR is allowed there. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 10:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@L10nM4st3r Help me to understand this concept of: "primary research". So, I can't quote it if it's a lone wolf? But what if another source can be found? In other words, how many primary sources of research does it take for each of them to be considered secondary? Or, if quantity of independent citations are not enough, then how deep does a string of citations have to go, as in: me citing someone else, who cites someone else, etc.? -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

This is how I understand it @MarcGarver: tell me if I'm wrong. You research something, say, the moon is slowly shrinking. You find proof, bujt you can't post it on w:Moon. Not yet anyway. Then you post your findings somewhere where it gets verified. If the moon really is shrinking, news sites everywhere (or some news sites) say the moon is shrinking. Before you know it, somebody adds "the moon is shrinking" to the wikipedia article. Obviously the moon is not shrinking, but as an example it works well. But your case seems to be able to just post it on a wiki that allows original-research-that-is-not-outright-false. That would be Wikiversity. I suggest having it sent to wikiversity. Transwiki to Wikiversity and delete from Wikibooks - that's my new vote. Transwiki basically means it will get transported to a potentially more suitable wiki - if they want it. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 21:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@L10nM4st3r

Wikiversity:Import#Free_Energy_does_not_Exist

wikiversity:Free Energy does not Exist -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 02:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)