Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mrshaba: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:39, 7 May 2008 editFinetooth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers123,693 edits Flipping photos: MOS thoughts about faces← Previous edit Revision as of 17:15, 7 May 2008 edit undo199.125.109.57 (talk) Flipping photosNext edit →
Line 48: Line 48:
::The original is better for aesthetic reasons, I think. The original image-maker thought about spatial orientation when creating the original. The orientation is radically different in the flipped version and not so good, in my opinion. On the other hand, I would have to agree that flipping a perfect circle might not make any difference. I think it is likely to make a subtle difference with human faces, though. I'm not as certain about trains, but why take a chance? ] (]) 00:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC) ::The original is better for aesthetic reasons, I think. The original image-maker thought about spatial orientation when creating the original. The orientation is radically different in the flipped version and not so good, in my opinion. On the other hand, I would have to agree that flipping a perfect circle might not make any difference. I think it is likely to make a subtle difference with human faces, though. I'm not as certain about trains, but why take a chance? ] (]) 00:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Later this evening I chanced upon this piece of advice in the images section of ]: "Since faces are not perfectly symmetrical, it is generally inadvisable to use photo-editing software to reverse a right-facing portrait image; however, some editors employ this controversial technique when it does not alter obvious non-symmetrical features, such as Mikhail Gorbachev's birthmark, or make text in the image unreadable." ] (]) 03:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC) :::Later this evening I chanced upon this piece of advice in the images section of ]: "Since faces are not perfectly symmetrical, it is generally inadvisable to use photo-editing software to reverse a right-facing portrait image; however, some editors employ this controversial technique when it does not alter obvious non-symmetrical features, such as Mikhail Gorbachev's birthmark, or make text in the image unreadable." ] (]) 03:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

==Solar energy==
I'm not going to bother to look up the standard warning templates for ], but consider yourself notified of the rule, but I am going to remind you that the way articles get written is to start out with a stub, add material until the article gets to about 30-40 kB edit byte count, and then create subarticles, and put a summary in the main article for each of the subarticles, along with a main: link to each subarticle. The United States article actually is over 2 Megabytes but has over a hundred subarticles, not all of which are directly linked from the main article - each of the 50 states of course is a subarticle for example. It is never controversial to move blocks of text from a main article to a subarticle, as long as there is a summary in the main article and no content is lost in the shuffle. ] (]) 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:15, 7 May 2008

When hell freezes over...
  
Have a cold one...

Hello!!!! I'm currently working on the main solar energy article and a few other solar energy projects.

Stuff

Misplaced Pages article in the News

New report

Hi Mrshaba, This one has just come out and I thought you may be interested. It paints a pretty picture... Johnfos (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Data

3075-3275 or 80-85% with ~ 2/3rds stored and released seasonally. 66.122.72.201 (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Better source request for Image:National_Renewable_Energy_Laboratory_Campus.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:National_Renewable_Energy_Laboratory_Campus.PNG. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. MECUtalk 20:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's too confusing, but I and many others are more than happy to help sort it all out. Take a look at User talk:MECU/Image FAQ, especially #2 and #3. That should hopefully answer some of the confusion you have. If you need more help, let me know. Thanks. MECUtalk 23:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mrshaba,

thanks for you thoughtful note.

You are correct I work in the water idustry but as an Energy Manager and have had a long and deep involvement with the power industry - ie I am not really a water person. The problem is that intermittency has been offered as a descriptoin of something unique to renewables, but it is in fact, a problem for all power plants - that is simply a fact. I have merely pointed this out. Systems are necessarrily in place to deal with the intermittency of existing plants, and these can simply be extended for more renewables. So i have not redefined intermittency just poitned out that it also applies to existing plant. I can assure you that all conventional power plants can and do stop completely unnannounced - and dealing with this is a necessary part of the design of power systems AT THE MOMENT. Kind Regards.

PS have a look at the Claverton Energy Group - you might like to consider joining it.

TPV NTS

Solar TPV devices call for an operating temperature of 1800 C while nuclear TPV devices aim at 950 C. The lower operating temperatures are no doubt driven by a desire to more easily mesh TPV parameters with conventional plant materials and operating parameters. If a nuclear TPV device is expected to reach near term efficiencies above 20 percent a solar TPV device operating at higher temperatures could presumably reach higher efficiencies (only available estimate is 24 percent). The TPV scheme mentioned below uses a spectral control system to pass high energy photons and reflect-back low energy photons. It would also seem possible to use the spectral splitting technique employed at the University of Delaware to divert the low energy photons to a conventional power cycle.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/850113-2PRErD/850113.PDF
Analytical Evaluation of a Solar TPV Converter - Michael Edenburn
http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2008/jul/solar072307.html

Mrshaba (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Flipping photos

Hi, I never flip my photos for publication because the flipping distorts reality in ways that are disorienting. If I can't find or create a photo that looks or heads in the desired direction, I do without. Almost always, though, it's possible to move a photo to the left side or the right side of the page to solve the "aiming" problem. I'm not sure if Misplaced Pages itself has a policy about flipping. I just don't do it. Finetooth (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The original is better for aesthetic reasons, I think. The original image-maker thought about spatial orientation when creating the original. The orientation is radically different in the flipped version and not so good, in my opinion. On the other hand, I would have to agree that flipping a perfect circle might not make any difference. I think it is likely to make a subtle difference with human faces, though. I'm not as certain about trains, but why take a chance? Finetooth (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Later this evening I chanced upon this piece of advice in the images section of WP:MOS: "Since faces are not perfectly symmetrical, it is generally inadvisable to use photo-editing software to reverse a right-facing portrait image; however, some editors employ this controversial technique when it does not alter obvious non-symmetrical features, such as Mikhail Gorbachev's birthmark, or make text in the image unreadable." Finetooth (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Solar energy

I'm not going to bother to look up the standard warning templates for 3RR, but consider yourself notified of the rule, but I am going to remind you that the way articles get written is to start out with a stub, add material until the article gets to about 30-40 kB edit byte count, and then create subarticles, and put a summary in the main article for each of the subarticles, along with a main: link to each subarticle. The United States article actually is over 2 Megabytes but has over a hundred subarticles, not all of which are directly linked from the main article - each of the 50 states of course is a subarticle for example. It is never controversial to move blocks of text from a main article to a subarticle, as long as there is a summary in the main article and no content is lost in the shuffle. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mrshaba: Difference between revisions Add topic