User talk:Vinyasi

Regarding your deletion, I don't understand the reference. I thought images are not original research and merely aid the reader to focus on the text? What am I missing? How does this apply?Vinyasi (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

You need a reliable source to say that circuit is properly implemented and that it demonstrates the effect. If a manufacturer gives a circuit on a datasheet and you "paraphrase it" (redraw it yourself), that would not be OR and you could cite the manufacturer's data sheet. If your SPICE implementation were obvious enough, we might accept that it is an acceptable representation of the manufacturer's circuit. Your circuit, as drawn, is not obvious on these counts: the action of the source and the switch require expert knowledge of a particular SPICE implementation. For example, is the switch on or off when the voltage is zero? Finally, unfortunately, SPICE lies, especially on the transient analysis. But before we invest a lot of energy in this debate, lets see what others say. Also- Happy New Year! Constant314 (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Constant314 Switch is OFF when voltage is measured zero at Vin. Switch is ON when voltage is measured zero at V(1). The exorbitant positive and negative spikes measured at V(1) are the release of back EMF originating at the inductor. Good question. I had to sit and stare at it for a few moments. Thanks for asking. Maybe I should edit the diagram/s by adding text to highlight your concern for vagueness? We can always wait to hear from others.... As for a simulator lying, well, I don't know. I tried the simulation using more strict parsing methods which LTSpice gives the user the option to try out, and I found no variation for both images used in my Decoupling capacitor edit. Vinyasi (talk) 04:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Having stared at your circuit, I think what you have depicted is not a common application of a decoupling capacitor. In fact, it probably would not be considered an example of decoupling at all. Constant314 (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It might be that I don't understand what Vinyasi is doing, but the common need for decoupling is lead inductance and di/dt. Lead inductance is small, but di/dt is big. Gah4 (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

File:The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman.jpg

Vinyasi (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

File:The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, v2.jpg

Vinyasi (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Those chaotic looking currents are symptoms of possible convergence failure. By the way, this is WP:FRINGE. Constant314 (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Overunity is always stressful to the circuit, to the inventor, to our penchant for comfort and security. Needless to say it's also stressful to a simulator trying to make sense of it. We're supposed to take a neutral point of view, here. So, I refuse to interpret 'Fringe' as being even remotely prejudicial. I'd much rather tone it down a bit and call this out-of-the-ordinary which destroys the foundation of verification, here. So be it. Without challenging both mine, and your, comfort zone for mingling where I don't belong - here, I would not have learned anything. So, I thank all of us for our differences. The one thing we all seem to share in common, is that we care enough to get involved. Vinyasi (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

File:The Energy Machine of Joseph Newman, v4.jpg

I suspect the chaos is the result of trying to squeeze all of the gain from out of the primary voltage source, V1. That created the disruption in the simulated voltage source of the permanent magnet rotor, V3. By tinkering with it some more, I decided not to be so precise in attempting to replicate Newman's results. Instead, I decided upon merely replicating the overall concept and adhere to your comment. So, by diminishing the magnetic field of the rotor, and increasing its voltage, and totally eliminating any spikes by increasing the capacitor, I discovered that the mysterious gain claimed by Newman is not so mysterious after all. It all comes from the massive pressure provided by the permanent magnet. This smooths out all of the traces eliminating chaos from the circuit simulation, reverses the current at the primary voltage source (battery pack) - V1, reduces the voltage provided by V1 to zero, and still manages to provide the appearance of gain on the coil, L1, transferred from the magnet. So, the coil is merely acting as a pickup receiving power from the rotating magnet. Thanks for the criticism. This clears up a lot of the mystery surrounding his device. Vinyasi (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Gah4 I'll tell you what I'm doing. Joseph Newman used a very long wire for the primary coil on his motor. That produced a very high capacitance since the depth of the enamel on his magnetic wire was divided into the huge surface area of a 50-100 mile long coil of wire. But the capacitor in my two circuits are in parallel, not inline, with the inductor, and grounded - just like his motor was not grounded directly, but indirectly, to its immediate surroundings through the capacitance of the insulation on his motor's primary coil creating a huge electric field surrounding it. Since it's the capacitor which is grounded, not the inductor itself, this has the opposite effect of a capacitor placed inline with the inductor and thus throws its voltage back onto the inductor. This is especially magnified since the low-level capacitor of 0.01 pico Farads in the 'Back EMF with bypass filter' circuit on the left-hand side of the image reaches saturation very prematurely. This implies what amplified the inductor's back EMF on Newman's primary motor coil (kind of like using 'reverse psychology', or 'reverse logic in a debate', to accomplish a task). The 'Suppressed back EMF with a bypass filter' circuit on the right-hand side of the image is suggestive of conventional motors since the larger valued capacitor of 10 Farads - again, located not inline with the inductor - is effectively equivalent to the use of shorter motor coil lengths of diminished capacitance on conventional motor coils and that smooths out their response. Conventional EV motors satisfy conventional consumer tastes of fast reaction times in providing acceleration not requiring a lengthy period of 'warmup'. Newman's motor required walking away for several minutes (after getting it started with a hand-crank effect similar to early cars, such as Ford's Model T) to wait for his motor's RPMs to increase and stabilize at its normal idling speed operating without a load. Since the Patent Office denied him a patent, we'll never know what we're missing. But I read his book and understand the basic idea. I agree, this sort of thing is not at all practical. But as a teaching tool, his motor rocks. That's what I intended to do with this circuit simulation: emulate his motor, but in a solid state device. I hope I didn't make this more confusing since, in my circuit, the capacitance is in parallel with the inductor creating a capacitant effect inverse to an inline capacitor. But a normal motor coil would engender an effective capacitance equivalent to its wire length – not inverse to it as in my two circuits.

In the real world, the values of capacitance and inductance of a length of wire would rise or fall together. But in my simulation, they're kept as two distinctly separate values since a simulator can't depict a virtual ground of an inductor, namely: a direct ground of the insulation on an inductor – in contradistinction to a direct grounding of its copper coil (how the National Bureau of Standards errored in their test of the Newman motor, see below). Thus, keeping them separate means I have to do the opposite of what the real world would evoke: I have to lower the capacitor's value in my simulation if I want to emulate a long coil of wire since the capacitor is not inline, but in parallel, to the inductor nearby.

This is why I felt compelled to create a new set of electronic symbols to imply this new way of appreciating coil lengths – both with and without a magnetic core. And also in small sizes with and without a magnetic core.

But this is all OR to admit it now. That's why I distinctly chose not to admit this until now hoping that if I focused on the principle, not the legacy of an inventor, I might have a better chance of success. But obfuscation of motives didn't work. Oh, well. Vinyasi (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the Patent Office, the National Bureau of Standards admits on their website that: The National Bureau of Standards provided the resistive load which was connected in parallel with the coil.^[4] This is an example of current wanting to take the path of least resistance through a parallel load, bypassing the coil (of greater resistance than their test load) to a significant degree by cleverly self-shorting Newman's primary coil and prevent accumulation of HV. Had they performed their test as Newman advises in his book by wrapping a shorter length of secondary coil around the larger primary coil and placing the test load only inline with this secondary and isolated from the primary, then it's entirely possible that the NBS would have produced more accurate results and replicate Newman's. Then, the history of Newman and his motor would have read a bit differently then what transpired. Vinyasi (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Constant314 basics.gif Looks the same to me. {from: The Basics - Bypass Capacitors} The only distinction is that Fig.1 succeeds at suppressing back EMF while Fig.2 does not.^[5] Vinyasi (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. So it's synthesis on my part. The older, out-of-date NOR^[6] said – To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. – I was hoping that anyone can see from this schematic that it might be better not to fight Mother Nature, but accept and enhance back EMF while also trying to discover ways of putting it to good use. Vinyasi (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, your circuit is bizarre. The voltage source starts out at 48V, decreases rapidly to 0 for about 1 ms and then goes rapidly back to 48V. Nothing bizarre with that. But then consider what the capacitor sees. It sees the voltage source, through the 0.1 milliohm switch, go from 48V down to 0.5V and then become a high impedance for a millisecond and then change back to a voltage source at 1.5V which then rapidly returns to 48V. There is no circuit, known to me, that would function in such a way. So, not only would a non-expert not understand the circuit, an expert that did understand the circuit would not see a real world example of decoupling. Constant314 (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

A talk page is not a forum for general discussion. The above is not about discussion of the improvement of this article on decoupling capacitors. I propose to apply the "collapse" templates to the above off-topic discussion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me. Constant314 (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I tend to give more leeway to talk page discussions. For one, the discussion might decide that something isn't needed or appropriate for the article, but you won't know that without discussion. Or maybe it belongs in another article, which again you learn through discussion. More specifically, an article might be improved by leaving something out, which still requires discussion on why it is best not in the article, which means understanding it enough to know that. Gah4 (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree in general. As long as the discussion was about a circuit simulation that might be useful for demonstrating decoupling capacitor, it was on topic. But it has taken off on a tangent regarding over-unity machines and the idiosyncrasies of SPICE; it is clearly off-topic. Anyone who wants to discuss it further can do so via user talk pages. Constant314 (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Or it could go to the talk page for Newman's_energy_machine. Gah4 (talk) 06:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Gah4. I'm new here and don't know how to move this discussion to a more appropriate location. Vinyasi (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I take mild, comedic offense at this being labeled as fringe theory. It's not fringe theory, nor original research, due to the realization that it takes two different genders to come up with a child. Likewise, to merely consider energy - without also considering intelligence - is a disregard to how a magnet can appear to be a source of energy - which it is not. It is a source of coherence which can be used to boost a preexisting energy source by contributing its intelligence. Thus, no magnet runs down from its use. When it does run down, it will be due to time, not energy drainage. Same as time affecting batteries undergoing continual recharging to top them off. Those batteries won't drain, but they will age making their use anything but perpetual motion. Vinyasi (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I only tell you this to save you grief and frustration. In the bigger world, maybe Newman's machine is not fringe, but in the Wikipedia world, all over-unity machines, free energy machines, perpetual motion machines are WP:fringe. The WP approach to fringe theories is to allow it, but contain it. This is because fringe topics often invoke a lot of controversy and passion and simply suck the energy out of many editors and WP becomes dysfunctional. So, you can have an article on a fringe topic, such as a particular over-unity machine, and you can work on it there. But, insertion of fringe materiel into non-fringe topics is considered disruptive editing. If you try to introduce a fringe topic to a non-fringe article (such as decoupling capacitor), it will be removed, possibly rudely. If you persist, you will get warned and if you further persist you will get blocked for disruptive editing. That's just the way it is. The more controversial a subject, the more it should be contained. It is a compromise that helps WP avoid strife and chaos. So, edit on the article about that machine, if you wish, but the policies against OR and SYN will be enforced there also. Or put it on your talk page. You can even create a sub-page of your talk page and put it all there. I have no interest in over-unity machines, but I do have an interest in LTspice. I would be happy to discuss making your simulation work. Constant314 (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever used a battery to bring the 90 degree angular difference between waves of reactive power back together? Ergo, a simple method of correcting power factor? Any voltage, even that of a so-called dead battery, will suffice so long as the battery possesses or is in series with a moderate resistance -- at least 1k Ohms. An example of taking the advice of Ossie Callanan.Vinyasi (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for caring to protect me. It has been stressful. But within anything stressful is divinity peeping through even though it may not look that way at first glance.

I do disrupt things, but not for long. Failure to slap me is failure to care enough about the social dynamics involved, here. I have to learn somehow or another. I'm a late bloomer.

My simulation works already. It demonstrates to my satisfaction that there is absolutely no overunity to Newman's device due to the enormous contribution made by the rotating magnet along with resonance between the coil and the magnet. The batteries merely run the circuit; they do not provide the gainful appearance of overunity. The successful clue for this is the negative current arising in the batteries. This is one of the observations which Dr. Hastings made of Newman's motor in chapter six of Newman's book.

And the clue for my failure to produce a working prototype is your comment about chaos arising in versions one and two of my simulations. I assumed you were referring to the ugly looking sine wave of amperage within V3 powering L2. L2 is intended to simulate an electromagnet version of a rotating bar magnet. The inductance of L2 had to be reduced while the voltage supplied to it had to be increased. This led to a condition in which it became possible to raise the value on the capacitor to totally eliminate spikes. These spikes, I thought, were a sign of something good. But I was wrong. Newman says that a capacitor strung out in parallel with the coil is useful to eliminate arcs at the commutator. By paying attention to any of the scopes exhibiting spiking, especially V1, I came to the conclusion that I was wasting energy drained from V1 making it impossible to recharge the batteries at V1.

By raising the voltage contribution of V3, all geometry of squareness occurring in the all of the scoped waves (due to the pulses from V1 modified by V2) disappeared indicating that the main successful influence in this simulation of version four comes from the AC input from V3. Failure to do this resulted in the current of V3 becoming choppy, because V3's voltage was weak by comparison to the voltage of V1 in the prior versions.

Simulating a rotating bar magnet, and considering the lack of convergence in the prior versions, forced me to look for overlooked factors to improve the simulation. The resulting version four exhibits, not an exact replica of a Newman motor, but an exact concept of his circuit's methodology.

I'm proud of myself, for this wasn't easy. But without my commitment (I spent a lot of money to get a hard copy of his eighth edition to satisfy my curiosity with a non-PDF scan), and my involvement here (screwy as it may be), I couldn't have asked for anything better.

If you can find ways for improving the fourth version or coming up with an entirely different execution of a unique concept, then go for it. I'm all ears.

Thanks.

Vinyasi (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

This simulation is anything but fringe. It's the blending of AC coming from a rotating magnetic field plus DC square waves coming from the batteries passing through a commutator.

http://vinyasi.info/ne?startCircuit=acplusdc.txt

The AC eventually predominates the coil, taking a short while to build up to this condition stabilizing in approximately thirty seconds in this simulation.

This image begins at the very beginning and is thus able to show the initial build up. The image immediately above this one begins its traces at the thirty second mark once the traces have already stabilized.

In the real world, the Newman motor took longer than thirty seconds to accelerate its RPMs and also build up voltage on the coil to the point at which it was greater than what the batteries were supplying.

Vinyasi (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Oops! I had forgotten to add resistance to the rotating AC field. Vinyasi (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Some observations

V1 produces pulses for 1000 cycles, so it goes to zero and stays there at the 20 second point. Your .tran command says to start saving data beginning at 30 seconds, so V(in) in your waveforms is exactly zero. Is that what you intended?

No. That was an oversight. Thanks.

The rise and fall time on V1 is 1 femto-second. That is unrealistic and difficult for the simulator. I would suggest 1u (1 micro second).

OK.

LTspice automatically puts in 1 milliohm in series with inductors, unless those inductors appear in a mutual statement. So, in your case L1 and L2 have zero series resistance. You might improve accuracy and simulation time by absorbing R2 into L2 and R1 into L1. You can also absorb C1 into L1.

For whatever reason unbeknownst to me, my simulator refuses to accept a series resistance on its inductors and act like I put it there. So, I opted for the only method that produces results is to put a separate resistor right beside the inductor.

As for the capacitor, I get different results if I put parallel capacitance internal to an inductor. And Newman specified a capacitor placed in parallel to the inductor. So, since I get different results, and I'm not sure which is 'safer' ('safer', as in: the opposite of my insecurity over not fully knowing what I'm doing), I've consistently chosen to avoid internalizing anything inside an inductor's values other than its inductance and place resistors and capacitors as separate items outside of inductors.

If you cannot absorb R1 into L1, then it won't work to absorb C1 into L1. It is odd that you cannot set the series resistance of the inductor. I experimented with setting the parameter for mutual inductors, both before and after they were declared to be mutual and had no problem. Constant314 (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

You have specified that the inductance of L1 is 16,000 henries. That is enormous. Is that what you intended?

Dr. Hastings specified this value. But I have since opted for producing similar results using whatever input values of components give outputs similar to what Dr. Hastings measured in chapter six of Newman's book that utilizes one particular version which Newman built.

The ratio of L1 to L2 is huge. It is quite impossible to build a transformer with a coupling coefficient of 1 in such a case. 0.99 is optimistic, but much more realistic. Constant314 (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

That is only a transformer inside the simulation. It is not intended to be built. It is my work-around solution to 'how do I simulate a rotating magnetic field in LTSpice' loosely coupled to an inductor? Anyway, I went with your suggestion of .99 coupling coefficient.

For loosely coupled, you would want a much smaller coupling coefficient, such as 0.01 to 0.5. Constant314 (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Here is a simulation with .5 for their coupling coefficient. Vinyasi (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I noticed an oversight of mine. The 50Hz on V3 represents a far slower rotation speed than the 136 RPM measured by Dr. Hastings. So, I made two versions with a more accurate RPM: one with a tight coupling and another with a loose coupling for comparison. The latter was more difficult to get its output to be similar to Dr. Hastings' review. Vinyasi (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

136 RPM=136/60 = 2.27Hz Constant314 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't use fractions since I didn't feel confident at putting a fractional Hz into V3. So, I modified the targeted RPM with a rounded figure that could produce whole numbers for both the square wave V1 chopper as well as its equivalent value for generating sine waves. I couldn't think of an easier way to get the square and sine waves to sync. Vinyasi (talk)

The point that I failed to make is that 50Hz is much is faster than 136 RPM. Constant314 (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Is that Hz/min or Hz/sec? ;-) Vinyasi (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hz is cycles per second. RPM is cycles per minute. 120 RPM = 2 Hz. 3000 RPM=50Hz. Constant314 (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Newman divided his revolving commutator into twenty divisions recommending more divisions for better results. This implies greater efficiency at higher frequencies. Thus, 136 RPM divided by 60 times 20 = 45 & 1/3 Hz. I rounded upwards to the nearest value I could simulate keeping both the square waves and the sine waves completely in sync. So, I chose 50Hz.

Then, in seeking to correct myself, I blundered by multiplying 136 by 60 times 20 to get 163,200Hz. Oops! But that's a good oops. Thanks for clearing my head.

It might be possible to build this with a tight coupling provided that the coil is wrapped around a cylindrically laminated coil form with a slit down its entire length to reduce eddy currents (just like Geoffrey Miller does on his replication) and cap both ends with another laminated structure to send the magnetic field emitting out the sharply edged ends of the coil form back into the coil if these tubular caps fit over the coil form to direct their magnetism back into the coil. Also, the coil form should be ridged along its outer face in the direction of the coil's windings. Furthermore, the magnet should also be ridged, but in the opposite direction with a smaller secondary coil wrapped around it in the same direction as the magnet's ridges and opposite to the coil's windings with a very small resistor placed inline with this magnet-coil or this resistor is left out - either way; I don't know which.

The reversed windings on these two coils will more closely resemble the swapped coils in the simulation.

The ridges are where the magnetic field comes out while failing to exit along smooth surfaces of both the magnet and the coil form preferring, instead, to exit out both rims of the coil form and both ends of the magnet. So, the magnetizable caps placed over each end of the tubular coil form should take care of this escaping magnetism. Vinyasi (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

My question, now, is this: How could I change the cycles per second on V3 to not be any fixed rate? But instead, tie it to the level of voltage appearing on the coil, L1? It may begin at around 1Hz or more (simulating Newman giving the bar magnet a push with his hand), but it must be free to rise and fall after the initial startup rotation of the bar magnet. This is an area of accuracy in simulating Newman's device which I have not considered until now. Any ideas? Vinyasi (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, V_bat_1, V2 and V3 on version 8 would all three have to be tied together and change their duty cycle at the same time tied to the level of voltage on L1. Vinyasi (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Vinyasi (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

To lend a little reality to this discussion, here is a diagram someone sent me. Vinyasi (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussing this topic at the Straight Dope forum inspired me to alter this simulation to have more negative voltage on the coil so as to facilitate recharging of the batteries. I have to stop focusing on producing a mere negative current on the batteries if I want them to charge. So, I upped the magnitude of voltage to the absolute value of the batteries plus ten percent times negative one. Vinyasi (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

What does negative impedance on the coil, L1, mean as compared to positive impedance on the battery, V_bat_1? Vinyasi (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I may have answered my own question. More impedance results in less wattage. So, it depends on how much wattage I want on which component of a circuit. Considering the cooling influence of the spinning magnetic field, more impedance/heating on the coil bathed in the magnetic field of a strongly coupled spinning bar magnet is not a bad idea since that'll reduce the power sent to the coil if less power is a good thing. In the case of file v.11, that's the case by comparison to v.13 which is the opposite. So, version 11 looks to me to be a better variety than v.13 since it's not necessary to recharge the batteries, anyway. It's only necessary to not spend any current from the batteries. Since both versions have negative current on the batteries, v.11 looks better in its overall performance.

Now, I'm beginning to think that a solid state version of Newman's motor would be best of all making possible a stronger coupling between L1 and L2. Consequently, I have to see if I can find an LTSpice model for a motor since I have to somehow allow the RPM to vary based on the level of voltage on the coil, at L1, after its spin is begun at a fixed rate for a short moment with the help of a starter motor. Vinyasi (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You will find many helpful models and people on the Yahoo group: LTspice. Constant314 (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that it actually happened. Savo's lack of credibility as a witness – at the very least – puts himself in jeopardy, but does not guarantee the story's incredibility. In other words, Peter Savo may have been merely seeking a little extra fame for himself by endearing himself misrepresented as the nephew of Tesla to justify his hanging around him as nothing less than a groupie.

But the story actually occurred.

Tesla replicated the demonstration of the Ammann brothers performed ten years prior in Denver, Colorado, as witnessed and attested to by the Arizona Republican (now known as, The Arizona Republic).

But Tesla, known for his segacity of expertise, took the Ammann concept to a whole 'nother level of efficiency by using off-the-shelf parts (the vacuum radio tubes in the Savo account) plus a custom designed motor (also, from Savo's account).

By comparison, the Ammann brothers left the motor alone merely removing the battery pack and adding a “generator” with custom-designed aerials – two of them – attached to the top of a drum encasing this “generator”. The aerials were crafted from two bronze spheres.

I have my own theories of how each demonstration managed to boost atmospheric voltage to levels unheard of by standards of today – or yesteryear for that matter. But I'll leave my input, here, at this.Vinyasi (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vinyasi,

it seems that your Wikipedia account's sole purpose is to publish original research, either by adding it to articles, or by creating new articles full of it, or by creating article talk page discussions to request its addition.

Previous attempts to do so have been reverted at Inductor (shielded) and deleted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Overunity.

I have reverted further additions of poorly sourced content based on user-generated and self-published sources at Nikola Tesla electric car hoax, Electricity theft and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience.

The discussion at Talk:Euclidean_division#Euclidean_division_by_zero? and your messages at Talk:History_of_Transcendental_Meditation#Verifiability_of_Nancy_Cooke_de_Herrera's_claim_to_have_quoted_Charles_F._Lutes_is_Questionable look similarly unsuitable, especially as Special:Diff/843564277/843625641 mainly seems to argue against a core policy, WP:Verifiability, rather than actually addressing verifiability concerns. I'm not entirely sure about that, though, as the text is rather incomprehensible.

If you continue using Wikipedia as a forum for original research, you may be blocked from editing. Please make sure that all of your article contributions are verifiable using reliable, published sources. Neither StackOverflow nor Wiktionary nor your personal website are reliable sources. A huge colored table at WP:RSP provides an overview of known issues that may be helpful.

For context: JavaHurricane had complained about your recent spamming of links to a website whose name matches your username at WP:AIV. You're not blocked because Special:Diff/1131607350 and Special:Diff/1131590076 are only a small part of your contributions and you hadn't been warned about spamming and conflicts of interest before. I'll provide standardized advice in the messages below.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Vinyasi. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted.

If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making edits generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) to Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Nikola Tesla electric car hoax. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Bing Copilot is not a reliable source. Crow Basket (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Crow Basket. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that in one of your recent contributions to Nikola Tesla electric car hoax, you cited a link to a source that may not be reliable. Sources considered unreliable should generally not be used to support statements. Information from an unreliable source can be challenged by other editors and removed. Reliable sources are generally those with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Self-published material, user-generated content, and certain other outlets such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites or publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking may not meet these standards. If you are unsure about which sources are appropriate, there is a list of sources that are considered generally reliable. Additionally, some WikiProjects have their own lists of sources that are considered reliable for that particular subtopic. If you are still unsure about a source's reliability, you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you. Crow Basket (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2025 (UTC)