User talk:64.236.121.129

Welcome! Last edited: Last edited by: 19:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC) 64.236.121.129 (talk · contribs) Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your IP address, 64.236.121.129, is registered to AOL Transit Data Network and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are unable to create an account due to your institution's IP address being blocked, follow these instructions. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your network administrator or instructor and request that your school contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using {{School block}}. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Educational institution staff and network administrators wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

With regard to your comments on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- 68.156.149.62 01:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

You seem to be in the habit of behaving like a rude, whiny child at the reference desk. Please stop. Friday (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:DICK, and keep in mind that you're asking the Reference Desk for help. Learn some manners and behave civilly toward those you're asking a favor of. -- Coneslayer 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a Nazi is a personal attack, and is not permitted. -- Coneslayer (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wherever you got it, the point remains that Kainaw was providing helpful advice, and his statements were critical of the people you think of as "Rules Nazis". He was speculating that someone would jump in and delete the thread. If he were a "Rules Nazi", he would have deleted it himself, not contributed to the discussion. I have no idea why you thought it necessary to jump in with your insult. -- Coneslayer (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good picture of the parts that make it up. The little black piece is the Tungsten Penetrator:

http://www.ammo-oracle.com/images/556ap.jpg Arakunem^Talk 16:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Copyrighted image, so I didnt want to link it from Ref Desk, in case that's a problem...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arakunem (talk • contribs) 16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that ball shaped thing on the right of the pic is the primer for the base of the brass. As for the term "ball", that goes back to when they are just lead balls... one of those terms that just stuck I guess. For ex, the good ol' .45 ACP round is often called "round ball" or "hardball", even though inside the brass it has a flat end and is only round outside. Arakunem^Talk 17:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. These days "ball" just means full metal jacket. Friday (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are approaching the concept of electricity the hard way. Most people start with a D battery, some wire, and a flashlight bulb. You want to go straight to lightning and high voltage, which involve som of the more esoteric properties of electricity that don't show up at everyday voltages. It's a bit like wanting to know how a jet engine works when you have never heard of Briggs and Stratton. All I can tell you is to study Ohm's Law until you understand it through and through. That's really the only way to get a handle on all this. That said, I've copied your questions here, and I'll answer them one by one:

Why can you be shocked by lightning even if you aren't grounded, but you won't be shocked by a power line as long as you aren't grounded? From what I understand, the basic idea between the power line and the lightning is the same. It's just electrons traveling through a medium, and you are getting in the way of the path of the electrons. I think the key to being shocked is having a different electrical voltage (pressure) than the electrons flowing through either the wire, or the air (in the case of lightning).

You said "getting in the way of the path". When you grab a power line (conductor), you are not in the way. (To be in the way, you'd have to cut the line and hold one end in each hand.) If you put two hands on the line, practically no current will flow through you because there is practically no potential difference (voltage) between your hands along the conductor.

Before it strikes, lightning makes its own conductor (the leader) consisting of a snaky column of ionized air. If there is something other than ionized air along that path, it becomes part of the path. The voltage between a cloud and the ground is on the order of tens of millions of volts. If it's, say, ten million, halfway to the ground it's five million. If you are there skydiving in a dive, your feet are at five million volts with respect to ground, and your head is at a slighly lower voltage, the value of which can be calculated multiplying the resistance of your body times the current flowing through it and subtracting that from five million. I will admit that's going to be hard to do while simultaneously bursting into flame and plummeting to your death.

Steve Summit said you will get an inrush current when you touch a wire, and it will bring you up to the same voltage. But he said it is small, and presumably it isn't a sudden shock. Doesn't lightning do the same thing? When it hits you, even if you aren't grounded, it will bring you up to the same voltage. So why does the lightning shock you (when ungrounded), but touching the wire, while ungrounded, does not?

I said that, too. The amount of current involved in bringing you up to the potential of a conductor will be determined by the voltage on the conductor. With very high voltages, it's plenty enough to kill you all by itself, and with not-so-high-but-still-pretty-high voltages, you'll get burned but good. It's sudden because it happens by arcing over just like lightning. At little baby voltages like 600, you'll be OK. I think I answered the next bit in the first part above.

How many amps are usually flowing through the power lines? If you touch the wire when ungrounded, will the same amount of amps flowing through the power lines, also flow through you subtracting your body's electrical resistance?

Very high voltage long-distance power transmission lines have something like maybe 100 amps in them, less a lot of the time; it depends on demand. Not that much in the big picture. Again, the resistance of the aluminum is basically zilch, so the potential difference (voltage) between two close-together points along it will be equally zilch.

If you are touching a power line, and you have 30,000 volts passing through you (and are ungrounded). Then someone comes and shoots a taser at you which is supposed to zap you with 30,000 volts. Would you feel anything? Since you are at the same voltage, you shouldn't feel anything right?

Volts don't pass through you. You can think of electrical potential like it was gravitational potential. When you are at thirty thousand volts with respect to ground, it's like being at thirty thousand feet of altitude with respect to the ground. If whatever is holding you up stops doing that, you'll do a Wiley Coyote. Electrons at a potential (voltage) with respect to ground act the same way, except they can't get to the area of lower potential unless there is a conductive path for them to take. So they just stay there, but they feel the force, and unlike with you and gravity they feel all the force at once.

Two guys, Dufus and Rufus, are sitting five feet apart on a 30,000-volt power line. Dufus shoots Rufus with a taser designed to deliver 30,000 volts. Rufus will be zapped just like they were standing in his kitchen. The taser's voltage is not with respect to ground, it is across the two contacts of the taser. One contact will be at 30,000 volts with respect to ground, just the same as our two idiots, and the other will be at 60,000 volts with respect to ground. But ground doesn't enter into it since there's no path.

In all this explaining, I've ignored the fact that we're talking about AC. That makes things a little different. AC is a sine wave, so that when you say 30,000 volts AC, you are talking about RMS voltage, which is the amount of AC that will do the work of that much DC. The voltage on an AC line is zero with respect to ground 120 times a second, and plus or minus about 43,000 volts, too. Read up. The best book I know of for learning electricity is Electricity One - Seven by Harry Mileaf. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re your complaint about my answer to this person's question here. Could you explain what you think I did wrong? I provided a link to a column wherein a doctor was consulted about the dangers or not of drinking pee as per the person's question. That was more than most other people did! Please explain yourself if you are going to leave such comments after my posts. Thanks, Saudade7 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was hilarious I bet that surprised Coneslayer. I can't believe all these regulars on the ref desk don't see the obvious. David D. (Talk) 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely they have realised by now it only takes one to tango? David D. (Talk) 20:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment regarding exercising while sick has been removed from the Reference Desk as a violation of the "no medical advice" guideline. Since my cautionary post was removed with it, I'm noting it here for your benefit.

[A statement like "don't work out if you have a cold"] is the sort of response that derails medical questions into medical advice. At a minimum, such an opinion should not be put forth as a blanket statement. Similar statements clearly phrased as opinions (e.g. "I think you shouldn't work out if you have a cold") or referenced statements ("According to study X, exercise aids the cold recovery process") may be more permissible, though there's still a (poorly-defined, granted) line that should not be crossed. Please remember to exercise due caution when answering such questions. I am increasingly finding that, when in doubt, no answer at all is often the most agreeable approach. — Lomn 22:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To address your concerns:

1. The topic, prior to your response, was fine. This is a function of your response, not your IP, and I do not appreciate allegations otherwise.
2. Not asking for medical advice goes hand in hand with implicitly not offering medical advice. Attempts to wikilawyer around this are not likely to be well-received.
3. As noted in my original post, that's the distinction between a straight medical instruction and a clearly-stated opinion. Kainaw makes the same point below. Further, Kainaw made the removal. Given that he is more lenient towards medical postings than average, I would take that as a good sign that your post was clearly in the wrong. — Lomn 15:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good. I didn't start checking follow-up at other pages until after posting this. — Lomn 15:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case it isn't obvious, there is a huge difference between "Don't work out if you are sick" (which is unsolicited advice) and "I'm pretty sure that exercise while sick can cause myocarditis" (an opinion). Your comment gives a direct order - telling the person what he or she must do. The second comment is merely an opinion - allowing the person to decide if it is worth considering. What is your justification for undeleting medical advice? -- kainaw™ 14:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 64, Sourcing is good. We agree on that. As noted in the RD thread, my issue with your statement was one of manner and not substance, and it's entirely possible that our past interactions unfairly colored my opinion. That said, I'd like to remind you (as I often try to remind myself) that tone is easily misinterpreted when written rather than spoken. Reasonable claims on the Ref Desk are frequently unsourced and frequently unchallenged. Consider, from the thread in question: "cannon and greek fire have different roles as weapons" -- unsourced, reasonable. "Crossbows were occasionally used in WW2 as silent projectile weapons" -- unsourced, reasonable. Following up with a source can be, beyond merely good scholarship, fascinating education. To promote a congenial atmosphere, then, I encourage you to phrase such requests with less ambiguity; for example, "do you have an example?" or "is there somewhere I can read about that?" If, on the other hand, there's good reason to consider the information suspect, then a challenge (preferably with counter-example) may well be appropriate. Anyway, this conversation is off the RD now. You're right; it didn't need to happen there. — Lomn 15:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was unfairly colored. Take my statements for what they are. When I ask for a source, that's all that is implied. A congenial atmosphere is fine, but I didn't think my question had any venom in it at all. It was brief, but that's all. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, then. — Lomn 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted 64.236.121.129 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't, you will be blocked from editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to not yell on the talk page. I can report you to administrator's noticeboard for your yelling, and using your administrator status to intimidate me. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I have decided to report you for using your status as an admin to intimidate and threaten me for advising you on wikipedia policy. As you requested, I will not post on your talk page even though the talk page does not belong to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#User:TenOfAllTrades_yelling_to_make_a_point_on_reference_desk.2C_using_admin_status_to_intimidate_and_threaten 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your AN thread: The caps deal is waaaaaay overblown. Frequently, those who post to the Ref Desk in all caps give the impression that English isn't a first language. Inference, yes, but there are a lot of all-caps posts with addresses resolving to India and the like. Consequently, it's a reasonable assumption that simply saying "please don't use all caps" won't be understood, so "please don't use ALL CAPS" also serves to illustrate. Beyond that, the dispute is quite silly. There's no overarching rule, no WP:POINT, no drama, just a request for readability on the Ref Desk. I suggest you withdraw the AN thread and let this pass. — Lomn 16:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much as the WP:POINT matter, but him using his status as an administrator to threaten and intimidate me. By doing that, he is not allowing free communication. He is using fear to control me. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have any evidence to support your claim. As others have already suggested, it really would be better for everyone just to let this one drop.

Atlant (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten's comments on my talk page 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to a "diff" that you believe makes your point. Otherwise, having read quite a few of your exchanges with quite a few of the other editors here, I would have to say that the majority of the fault lies in how you approach other people.

Atlant (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of moot point now. Take a look below. Honestly, you really think this kind of treatment is fair? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing: once we agree that Ten's RD post was not in any way a WP:POINT issue, then it's painfully clear that you started this process -- specifically, that you accused another (well-respected) user of violating a key Wikipedia policy and haven't let it die. The latter part, in fact, is the crux of the matter. Mistakes like an accidental WP:POINT reminder happen, but escalation isn't viewed as a mistake. That's why you're seeing such a one-sided response from admins and other users. Admins are unlikely to listen to claims of "abuse", "intimidation", or "harrassment" when the complaint comes from the guy who picked the fight. — Lomn 18:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It always takes two to tango Lomn. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Permit me to use my status as an admin to threaten and intimidate you. I've closed the discussion on the noticeboard, now please drop it or you may be blocked for disruption. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I guess admins can do whatever they want. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please just stop. If you don't wish to be "harassed" - take some time out from Wikipedia. Rudget. 17:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop what? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, admins can do pretty much whatever they want. As it happens, in this case as in the vast majority of cases, what admins did was perfectly acceptable within policy and community consensus. Admins are like janitors, we clean up stuff. Like janitors we have all the keys and some pretty powerful cleaning chemicals, so do stand well clear while we're working. But as a simple matter of fact, yes, we can block you, we can lock pages to prevent you editing them, we can delete the comments you've made and we can in sundry ways make your contribution to Wikipedia impossible or gone. Of course we probably won't, because despite the repeated assertions to the contrary that is not the kind of thing we do for kicks, but we could if we wanted to so picking a fight with the admins is probably not very smart, especially since I don't see any evidence the admins have been picking a fight with you (other than telling you to keep off the grass, which is kind of expected from a janitor). Guy (Help!) 18:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thing is, in real life, if a janitor threatened or intimidated someone, they would be fired. Or worse. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess again. Janitors are expected to tell people if they are making problems for other users of the facilities, which is what happened here. A standard case of "oi, you, get off the grass!". Guy (Help!) 18:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A strawman. That's not what I said. I said janitors can't make threats or intimidate people. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a history of attitude problems. And you wonder why no one is willing to side with your view? If I were you I'd go and get a few second opinons from non admins if your not willing to listen. Finger pointing and claiming victimisation are not forms of productive communication. David D. (Talk) 18:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you again? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter. The observation stands. David D. (Talk) 18:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does matter. How do you know who I am, when I have no idea who you are? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN, your own talk page and the ref desk. The fact i know who you are should tell you something. David D. (Talk) 18:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll spell it out. You're disruptive. You bring attention to yourself by your actions. David D. (Talk) 18:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still don't know who you are, or how you know me. But uhh, ok. Thank you for your contribution. Or something. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David's right. Stubborn plus defiant plus resistant to attempts to instill clue is a combination that plays badly on Wikipedia. But not usually for long, if you get my meaning. One of the admins in my London office has a large wrench labelled "LART version 1.0". Around here we use a Wikitrout instead, but the intent is the same. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He might be, if I only knew who he was. Although I'm not sure what you're adding to this conversation. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]