Since Wikisource does not want the book due to being self-published (which it does seem to be), I am happy to '''keep it in Wikibooks'''. However, the book should probably start with a heavy disclaimer to the effect that the book contains original research, may be inaccurate or may reflect the point of view of a particular philosopher not accepted by mainstream philosophy. As incorrect as it seems to be, the book seems interesting enough. The book could be assigned in a philosophy course: "Read [[Developing A Universal Religion]] from Wikibooks a identify defects in its arguments"; or the like; a professional educator would probably be able to create a better formulation for an assignment, including perhaps "determine the kind of -isms the book falls under" or "identify authors developing similar themes" (which is more challenging since one needs to know the literature). The book is not much worse than a lot of bad material that passes as "philosophy" is some countries. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dan Polansky|contribs]]) 10:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Since Wikisource does not want the book due to being self-published (which it does seem to be), I am happy to '''keep it in Wikibooks'''. However, the book should probably start with a heavy disclaimer to the effect that the book contains original research, may be inaccurate or may reflect the point of view of a particular philosopher not accepted by mainstream philosophy. As incorrect as it seems to be, the book seems interesting enough. The book could be assigned in a philosophy course: "Read [[Developing A Universal Religion]] from Wikibooks a identify defects in its arguments"; or the like; a professional educator would probably be able to create a better formulation for an assignment, including perhaps "determine the kind of -isms the book falls under" or "identify authors developing similar themes" (which is more challenging since one needs to know the literature). The book is not much worse than a lot of bad material that passes as "philosophy" is some countries. --[[User:Dan Polansky|Dan Polansky]] ([[User talk:Dan Polansky|discuss]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dan Polansky|contribs]]) 10:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
{{vd}} This seems to be very much outside the scope of Wikibooks per "Wikibooks is an instructional resource". Also seems to contain a lot of original research. If its to be transwiki-ed, then Wikiversity seems a better project for it. [[User:Thenub314|Thenub]][[Special:Contributions/Thenub314|314]] ([[User talk:Thenub314|talk]]) 18:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
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:
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.
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.
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Restored. It appears that a couple of templates restored have nothing to do with the book and are relics of systems that are no longer followed on Wikibooks (such as the Dewey library classification system); it's fine to file a speedy-delete request for them if needed, quoting this page. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This book was deleted way back in 2010 back when strategy guides for video games were not allowed. I have stumbled upon the archived discussion here, and I think that since the Wikibooks community has accepted video game strategy guides, this book should be restored. P.s. in the discussion it’s written that one of the pages didn’t survive the transwiki since it was found unsuitable for strategywiki. Maybe it can be restored? I’m not sure because I haven’t read the page. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦18:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
General Internal Medicine
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Was doing my first transwiki imports after a while due to a request for import, and I forgot about the auto redirect feature when moving content to mainspace. Not sure if deletion is needed, but I'd note my mistake here, just in case. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Closed as delete. No opposition, and technically these pages could be speedy deleted anyway. Most pictures in the books have already gone, and they would no longer have been updated. --Jules(Mrjulesd)21:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello -
Please delete my Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine and Geriatric Medicine wikibooks. They have become obsolete. I am updating in a different place. I deleted the text because I was not aware I could request deletion.
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
The decision was keep. The reason for this is that deletion votes are either dubiously policy based (the "neutral point of view" argument, which is either untrue or else suggesting a rewrite); or else based on the concept of "objectionable content" which is not a policy-based argument. I would strongly suggest that any further deletion requests should be for the whole book only, I feel we have little to gain from the piecemeal deletion of its pages. --Jules(Mrjulesd)20:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reasoning for why "Suicide/Suffocation" should be deleted: The page violates Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. It advocates for methods of suicide as being "advantageous" due to their success rate. This content is deceptively masked under a false label ("video game strategy guides"). It is irresponsible and dangerous as it reads like a "how-to" manual for desperate individuals contemplating suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.46.214 (talk • contribs)
Delete I'm hesitant to agree. Wikibooks does not seem like the place for such a 'guide'. I don't see what value this brings to the project.--Xaniatalk00:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Wikibooks is not censored. If you don't like the way it is written, it can be changed to reflect a neutral / factual position. The "delete the suicide book" discussion has come up repeatedly with the same outcome - it's been kept. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that it's been nominated again and again (I remember it being nominated about 15 years ago for the first time) and I'm sure the consensus this time will also be to keep the page but I'd still like to voice my opinion. I'm sure this won't be the last time it's nominated either :) --Xaniatalk12:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would agree with QuiteUnusual's reasoning. Also the OP references Wikipedia, not Wikibooks, and additionally I see nothing about video games in the linked page. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP may be confusing the site banner with a label (which naturally appears at the top of every page). The site banner is about video game guides.--Xaniatalk11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know sacrificing your queen for a knight is dumb. But this is a chess opening book, and I personally think that with some expansion, (better moves perhaps?) this could be saved. Name Pun (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comment I know this user was blocked for socking, but I'm gonna assume this discussion is still open. The inconsistency can be fixed to add a chess box at the top of the page, but that is not the reason I used Template:delete. Though Name Pun does have a point, if there were some more good openings, a few bad openings wouldn't be too bad, maybe with a notice saying something like "this is not a recommended opening as it could have a significant negative impact as the game progresses"? I am therefore undecided. L10nM4st3r/Roar at me06:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The original book this one aims to be based on is released under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike 2.0 UK England & Wales licence according to their page at [1]. The author is quite clear on the same page that they are not OK with others using their book commercially (Albeit specifically referencing the Amazon Marketplace). Unfortunately, as I understand it this licence is incompatible with Wikibooks, which prohibits imports of content not fully compliant with a plain CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence, which includes commercial use. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Since Wikisource does not want the book due to being self-published (which it does seem to be), I am happy to keep it in Wikibooks. However, the book should probably start with a heavy disclaimer to the effect that the book contains original research, may be inaccurate or may reflect the point of view of a particular philosopher not accepted by mainstream philosophy. As incorrect as it seems to be, the book seems interesting enough. The book could be assigned in a philosophy course: "Read Developing A Universal Religion from Wikibooks a identify defects in its arguments"; or the like; a professional educator would probably be able to create a better formulation for an assignment, including perhaps "determine the kind of -isms the book falls under" or "identify authors developing similar themes" (which is more challenging since one needs to know the literature). The book is not much worse than a lot of bad material that passes as "philosophy" is some countries. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be very much outside the scope of Wikibooks per "Wikibooks is an instructional resource". Also seems to contain a lot of original research. If its to be transwiki-ed, then Wikiversity seems a better project for it. Thenub314 (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After removing more than half of the article for copyright violation (with phrases like "Visit our HomeStay(live with families or at a Bed and Breakfast) or Travel Advice pages for more information." and "Visit our Studying in the U.S. pages for more advice on the first question." still remaining as I could not find a source for them), I doubt that the rest of it is own work. Apart from that, the other creations by the same user have been posted in batches within short timespans, which sheds doubt on their originality too. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
The page was imported to wikiversity and a soft redirect was created
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)[reply]
“... 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)[reply]
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.[1]
Six years of independent research does not amount to made-up-at-school stuff.
Fringe science is useful.[2] 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.
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)[reply]
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…
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.[3] 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)[reply]
WARNING — These criteria are intended to garner success under simulation and usually within the context of the Berkeley SPICE family of simulators[4] (but not all the time; other simulators[5] 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[6] 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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Vinyasi: Let me ask this: in your "Mathematical Consequences" section, you try to find . 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)[reply]
in your "Mathematical Consequences" section, you try to find .
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: . 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...
Khan Academy
Equating the term, of: "Voltage regulation" with the term and function of a: "voltage source".
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.
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.
@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)[reply]
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 ...
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@L10nM4st3r To whomever this may concern... OK, but Can a redirect be placed (in place of the deletion) to redirect readers to its new location at Wikiversity? An automatic redirect, or else a notice with a link to the new location, would be very courteous since I've already scattered numerous links to this Wikibooks' location. Thank you. -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still want to keep it here at Wikibooks, or have a redirect to its new location if that's possible. If it has to go, then at least it has a copy in another location in case deletion occurs. -- Vinyasi (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@L10nM4st3r, MarcGarver, SHB2000, Leaderboard: quote, “... where are you getting your theories from? Can you cite relevant sources that describe what you are trying to say in your book?”
snip...snip I always assumed that I don't need to cite anyone other than myself – not due to any presumed brilliance of mine, but – due to common sense and simple logic. snip...snip If I perform a single caloric unit of energy every time I strike my hand with my other fist, and I am doing this per second, then if I should increase my frequency of strikes per second, doesn't this increase the quantity of energy which is delivered to my hand (by my fist) during each period of one second? This is why we're charged for our electrical energy usage using Ohm's Law – in Kilowatts – blended withper units of Hours since time is one of the three variables of Electrical Reactance Formulae. Time matters to electrical engineering and is not to be undersold since it works in conjunction with the other two ingredients of electrical reactance, namely: capacitive and inductive reactance. Electrical reactance formulae don't bother to measure themselves using units of amps or volts. And, likewise, Ohm's Law doesn't bother to quantify itself in terms of the temporal-factors of frequency and phase relations, nor with the dynamic field-properties of capacitance and inductance. Yet, it is the combination of these two mathematical relationships which quantifies our electric bill. snip...snip Assuming that you accept the analogy, up-above, of energy expenditure per unit of time along with its consequences, and since time is merely one of three variable parameters of electrical reactance, then it stands to reason that free energy is the manipulation of all of the parameters of electrical reactance, not merely one of them (ie, time), while diminishing the significance of energy (under Ohm's Law) even though some energy, no matter how small and insignificant, is always needed to run a circuit. snip...snip
↑Through power factor correction, using a capacitor in parallel with an inductive load, we can reuse 99% of our electricity in this example. This spawns the appearance of a 100 to 1 gain of output relative to input. Yet, this appearance is a mirage since no law of physics has been violated.
↑Quote: Michael W. Friedlander suggests that "fringe science is necessary so that mainstream science will not atrophy".
↑Wikibooks: Deletion policy; Requests for deletion "You should be especially sensitive to discussions about brand-new works, particularly by new contributors to Wikibooks. Unless there are obvious problems that are unlikely to be rectified, your time would be better spent mentoring new contributors and trying to help clean up new works, even if the work is currently a blatant violation of current procedures. Remember you were once a new contributor too."
↑Zip compressed file of two Micro-Cap simulations of this phenomenon. They both produce the same result despite the use of three galvonic-style batteries in one version versus not in the other version. Peruse this directory on my website (as an alternative to downloading this ZIP compressed file) and hunt for any filename which begins with simplest-overunity-circuit-you-will-ever-see__.
A likely copyvio according to Earwig's detector. I'd be happy to withdraw this deletion request if it is under a compatible license, but it does not appear to be.
Delete . The contributing user says they have permission in the edit comments, but unless explicit obvious permission from the original author is made clear on the discussion page or another appropriate page, I think this constitutes a violation. I think it would be appropriate to at least flag the book with the {{Copyvio}} template. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I believe that many pages in the book Popular Music unambiguously do not meet the Wikibooks criteria for inclusion due to being overly encyclopedic. These include:
The content of these pages all seems more suitable for Wikipedia and unsuitable for here, per Wikibooks is not an encyclopedia. I noted on the book's discussion page how I feel the book could be improved to be more suitable for Wikibooks. If the pages can be reworked, or if the information contained therein can be integrated somewhere more appropriate, they would not necessarily need to be deleted outright!
Delete unless Inner Focus chooses to move these to their userspace (it will still be out-of-scope, but at least we're not throwing their efforts in the bin). I can't see how these specific songs can ever be integrated with Wikibooks' other existing books, but I'll leave that to those who work more on content than I do. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 08:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely remember this rule being interpreted differently in the past, but despite this I can't find anything to back that up.
The platform section (Not the whole book) of History of video games. This one's on me, sorry. (The aforementioned memory led me to conclude this was OK)
I think The Unicyclopedia wouldn't be affected because even though it self describes as an encyclopedia, it still feels more like a guidebook with a specific focus on unicycling. If it consisted solely of pages that each described in excess detail a component of a unicycle (analogous to the Popular Music pages I mentioned), that might be less appropriate. As it stands, though, The Unicyclopedia seems reasonably structured, with a clear aim and interdependency between pages. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have trimmed such articles, leaving only an infobox of the song, music video information, and the view count milestone tables. Sorry, I don't know how to make an infobox for music and songs, and unfortunately, Wikibooks didn't have one. I created one a few minutes ago, but it appears not to be working properly. This is why I am using a table instead to give the basic info of a song. Inner Focus (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This book was only just created days ago, and is very incomplete. It is intended to be more than mere compilation; and the material does not come from a single source (of the sort that would be found on WikiSource), but from a variety of sources, with additional information. TrulyShruti (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you! @TrulyShruti, could you clarify the scope/intention of the book on its main page? As it stands, the description says only that it consists of "Liturgical texts from the Anglican tradition, in the public domain, as written in the original sources," and this would seem to fall outside of Wikibooks' scope. However, if it will go beyond that, it would be super helpful to elaborate upon this; then, other people will be able to contribute as well. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I created this page as a chapter that I was developing for a course. The content was split into two separate chapters in the same book. This page is no longer needed and is effectively orphaned.
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Delete pages in question for the same reasons as Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Pinyin and also Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/English-Hanzi. Phrases shouldn't be hard to verify facts; they are also dubious as far as being pedagogical aids, also likely are copyvios. They have no place in language guides in my opinion. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
talk 00:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Keep . Wikibooks is not censored. If you don't like the way it is written, it can be changed to reflect a neutral / factual position. The "delete the suicide book" discussion has come up repeatedly with the same outcome - it's been kept. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment previous discussions at Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide, Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide (2), Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide/Suffocation, and Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide/Toxification/Repackaging drugs in capsules. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Delete This seems to be very much outside the scope of Wikibooks per "Wikibooks is an instructional resource". Also seems to contain a lot of original research. If its to be transwiki-ed, then Wikiversity seems a better project for it. Thenub314 (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
FYI: Yes, I can (now)!
Wikiversity:Free Energy does not Exist
