Talk:Electronics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Atlant my friend

Need to explain to you what happened here, It really was from Light current earlier today, I did add ORCAD of which I use, and a real small amount added, Anyway old friend, LOL , the text originated from Electricity and I thought it would be more appropriate here on Electronics? Please see, history Hope you agree, and thanks for catching my error on text. Scott 23:58:02, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

In case you have any doubts, I wasn't being sarcastic; I thought this was a good addition! I was just trying to say something amusing as I fixed "incluse" to "include".

Atlant 00:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

No, No, understand, Did not think that, Just wanted you to know it fit here better than the electrity page. Seemed to be better addition here so I did not want to lose it. I think Light current did a good job but may be upset as he left a note on my discussion page. I'm sure you would agree fits really good here? I'll leave another note to him with this discussion. Regards, work tommorrow, Yuk! Regards Scott 00:12:50, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about Scott moving the stuff to electronics from electricity that he did. I agree with that. I was just asking why he changed the intro on Capacitor back to the original which was IMHO uglier.--Light current 01:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Light current: Well, If you think it looks better there, surely re-consider and accept my apology here. I think so far your edits have been fine. Keep up the good work, Have to go nite-nite

PS: You are right there are mostly XRAYS near the Anode of a klystron. If the waveguide leaks, get them there too. Scott 01:12:50, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

Electronics test and measurement equipment

Should this have its own page linked from here?--Light current 05:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed the electronic test equipment page. That'll do!--Light current 17:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Backlink

If this is a root page, why does it have a back link to Electrical engineering IMO, electronics stands alone from electrical eng!--Light current 22:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a hasty decision by me in my trial excercise, since electronics seems be an area that emerged from Electrical engineering. I think we are now agreed this degree of linking is probably not useful. --Lindosland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindosland (talk • contribs) 01:10, 1 March 2006

Merge with electronic engineering

It has been suggested that electronics be merged with electronic engineering.

Oppose - the electronics engineering article is properly a subfield of the electrical engineering article and is adequately covered there. --Wtshymanski 23:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I fear you may not have read the merge proposal correctly. Electrical engineering is not mentioned in it--Light current 02:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What would you say the difference was between electronics and electronic engineering as subjects or concepts?--Light current 00:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - Electronic engineering is about the field (eg. study and application of electronic devices and systems) .... electronics is about the devices themselves (eg., the electronic circuits and apparatus). Atleast it should be ... there does seem to be a bit of bleed over in the articles though .... JDR 00:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose I couldn't have put it better than Reddi. The article needs a rewrite, not a merge. Walkerma 03:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Electronics is a branch of physics. Electronic engineering is a branch of engineering. --Heron 20:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - Electronics is not the same as Electronic engineering. Zotel - the Stub Maker 02:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - "Electronic engineering" is not widely used since Electrical Engineering is the generally preferred term, though a distinction can be made. Regardless, the activity of engineering and the people who are engineers are definitely distinct and different from the physical devices. Electronics refers to the devices and the physics.

Oppose - I don't agree with that last comment. I took a BSc degree in 'Electronics' but would say I work as both an Electronics engineer (note the 's' on the end - an 'Electronic engineer' is a robot engineer cf. plastics engineer). The semantics is important. Science includes Electrical engineering which I would say includes Electronics, the practice of which is sometimes called electronics engineering (note the 's' again - electronic engineering is engineering carried out by electronic robots!). I would consider re-naming Electronic engineering as Electronics as a career and making this a branch page of Electronics. I would redirect [[Electronic(s) engineering to Electronics. We are not too keen on the word engineer in the UK as it means a garage mechanic, a problem of status that has been discussed in IEE publications every week for about 30 years without resolution! --Lindosland 19:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Root page principles now being tried

I've just changed the template to show the sort of branch pages I think should come off the rootpage Electronics. Each of these should carry a template that shows further branches. Thus Circuit diagram should, I suggest be off Circuit design and Resistor should be off Passive components. Transistor should be off Semiconductor devices. Semiconductor should not be here, but under Physics perhaps, linked to from the see also list. --Lindosland 20:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Semiconductor devices be off of Semiconductor (possibly in addition to Electronics)? Shouldn't Semiconductor be under Materials science as well as Physics? -- The Photon 05:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not. If you read the rules for Root page you will see that a page is only allowed to 'backlink' to one Root page. After much debate it has become apparent that without this the value of the idea breaks down into chaos. Every page is fixed in a tree somewhere. Where exactly may be to some extent arbitrary, but once fixed that is where it lives, which makes for coordinated editing without duplication. The 'see also' lists are then used for 'long range' linking, which proved very effective, leading possibly to Six degrees of separation, so Semiconductor devices should have a 'long range' link in its 'see also' to Semiconductor, which I would suggest should be off Materials Science which is off Physics. The organisation is not hierarchical but semantic, starting with a page that introduces a topic like Electronics and then branching to pages which it seems to 'include'. There is no one way to do this, but I hope that if people navigate around using the templates I have put in place on Electronics they will agree that it really does work well. There may be cases where teams will have to negotiate where best to put a page like semiconductor, but once agreed that's it: no duplication as you can't put two root pages on any page. If this gains favour, I plan to put up a simple explanation on Wikipedia:Branchlist which will superceed Rootpage while incorporating what we have learnt from that excercise. --Lindosland 12:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't test in live articles. Use the sandbox. Your static templates are un-maintainable on any large scale, and your proposed links on many uses of your many test templates seem only peripherally related to the page. --Wtshymanski 00:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Bill, please stop criticising and try to put forward some positive suggestions (if you have any)--Light current 00:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a positive suggestion. Instead of tinkering, use the links the way God and Jimbo Wales intended - leave off with this un-wanted innovation and concentrate on editng articles and improving *content*. Have you *seen* what those "branchlist" things look like? At least the "test" lists have very debatable links with the subjet of the page - what does "ferrite bead" have to do with "transformer"? Etc. And these templates are being created by *hand* . They achieve exactly nothing that can't be done in the "see also" list at the end of the article. --Wtshymanski 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you not see that the experimental work is not going to be perfect immediately and that petty sniping rather than constructive critisism is counter productive to the advancement of Wikipedia. --Light current 01:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Petty sniping" is one thing...serious and irreconcilable disagreement as to the very necessity are another. Never experiment on a live system ( or as the old-timers have it, "Always mount a scratch monkey)". --Wtshymanski 18:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding those "backlinks" which aren't backlinks. I keep seeing "back to X" when I did not come from X. I suspect you mean "up to X", but that would imply a hierarchy, and you're not supposed to be building one of those. --Heron 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Navigation templates

Firstly, 'those backlinks' are history, and supposed to have been removed, as per 'revised root page scheme'. They were not liked, and the template approach replaced them, at the suggestion of others. If any backlinks remain then I'm sorry -just remove them. Secondly I'm sorry to see the templates removed so hastily by just a few people. Lightcurrent and I have put a lot of thought into this, and despite the negative comments at Wikipedia:Root page I notice that people have started to add things to the templates, change their order etc. It was just getting going, and as Lighcurrent says you could have been positive and helped to improve the details. Only when a number of editors get used to working with the concept could it really take off. The people supporting and using it have not felt the need to say anything, so they are underepresented at the talk page. Some have said 'great idea' and disappeared (what more can they say)- it's the objectors who keep coming back to fight. Omegatron has actually commented to me that he thinks Noise and its associated pages, which actually started me off on the idea, are much better now. Only when I was able to rapidly go back and forth between the pages I had 'tied down' could I get a proper overview and reorganise those pages. Noise initially gave a wrong definition of noise, without taking into account the many areas in which it has different shades of meaning. With the templates they became easy to find and compare. You've been editing a lot longer than me, Omegatron. How come you hadn't put those pages into better shape before I came along? Couldn't it just be that I'm good at organising things, and recognised the need to get a good overview before I began?

Finally, these comments about 'no live testing' are ridiculous. There is nothing of great significance being 'tested' now, that isn't already in widespread use, from the point of view of the user. The concept is all hidden now, there for editors to take as a guide if they choose to. Taking down the templates across a range of articles on the grounds of 'no live testing, is not on, as they are just templates to all appearances, and templates are allowed and in use. Change them if you must, but taking them down is not in line with the policy of trying to improve first. Is there any point in me supporting Lightcurrent for reverting now? I'm tired of fighting such negativity, and especially to find the matter damaged by a battle between Lightcurrent and Wtshymanski that I understand existed before my time here. Wtshymanski, I wish you would have more patience with those trying to do positive work. Decrying ideas is easy. --Lindosland 21:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I said that Colors of noise and its related topics are a perfect example of where a navigational template would work well. You seem to think your arbitrary branchlists provide something that isn't provided by categories, navigational templates, See also sections, and normal wikilinks. I asked you to demonstrate what your branchlist templates would do better than a normal navigational template in this case. — Omegatron 04:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misrepresented what you said. I'm finding it a bit hard to keep track of things said across several pages. I did mean to point out that 'colours of noise' is a good example of the template in action, because when I started compiling it I had not heard the phrase, but I came across it and added it. I considered making it a hub, and if, as you suggest, more pages on noise colours came along, then they would be put on the hub. What my branchlist does that a normal navigational template doesn't is allow you to rapidy go back a level and see associated hubs with a wealth of pages. Thus from field effect transistor you click above in the blue box on active component and immediately see mosfet transistor, vacuum tube etc. Click again on the top box and you go back to (or did until the most vital template was taken off this page) Electronics, from where you can see many other hubs leading you to around 100 possible pages. I have found this ability to jump around the whole collection in seconds invaluable in checking and comparing them for content when editing. The same would be possible using a standard navigational template, but it would have over a hundred entries, making it much harder to look through and make sense of things. Whatever you may say about the list being arbitrary, I suggest that the linkage it provides between active components, passive components and so on is eminently sensible and useful. Yes, there are anomalies at present. For example I put up electronic component as a hub, but then decided that with the three-level limitation (which I favour) I could not then create further hubs off this for active and passive. There were going to be an awful lot of components, so I split them between active component and passive component hubs with the intention of taking down electronic component.

I judge each case on its merits. If I agree with Bill, I dont revert him and vice versa. --Light current 22:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The 'image' problem

That's good, and I try to do the same, not reverting pages I don't feel I've had much of a say in. But we now have a particular problem that the removal of the template from this, the root page, has made the other templates non-functional so far as the principle of navigating between the pages goes. Normally you click on the root and see a template, and if it's positioned at the top as most are (though I agree this can mess up image layouts, a problem to be sorted out at the page), there is impressive continuity when navigating. Now you just suddenly get pulled up with nowhere to go. Can I get any agreement for putting this one back, as it's so central, while lesser problems like blank gaps and layout disruption of images could be negotiated on other pages with the principle still working? I say again that this is not 'testing' in any real sense, since putting up the alternative full templates would cause much more disruption on every page owing to its huge size. --Lindosland 10:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So stop experimenting in live articles, as you have been told not to do many times. Create some mock up articles and experiment there. — Omegatron 13:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked me about the image problem elsewhere I believe, Light current, and I meant to answer. This is a good example of how putting the principle into use on trial pages reveals things that testing on sandbox pages could not. I became aware that putting the template at the top of the page sometimes shifted images down or created blank space, and I actually did considerable experimenting on some of the pages, movign things around for best appearance. Two things made this difficult. Firstly, the position the images and boxes take up (including the TOC box) depends on the width you drag the page out to in your browser, with all sorts of rules coming into play. Secondly, Wikipedia does not seem to right-align boxes to the same line as images, making many layouts that put a box above an image look messy. This seems to me to be a bug (or perhaps the result of a default border definition on the items). These problems are not special to this concept, they occur whenever images are added, and there is usually a way of re-arranging the text or the image positions/sizes to get an acceptable layout, but it is something I would expect people to negotiate at each page. One person suggested that putting the box alongside the TOC was a good rule. This is sometimes a good place, but if it puts the box too low down when you open the page, it spoils the continuity when navigating, so in general I would try to put them at the top RHS, with the text commencing on the left. --Lindosland 10:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont see how we would get anything like the sort of feedback we have been getting if this was all trialled on mock up pages. THey would not be seen. THen we would still have to go thro the live trialling before the real problems were discovered.

Anyway Omegatron, I have asked you before: Is this navbox a legitimate construct on WP or not . If so, then these are not experiments but normal editing! --Light current 14:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Branchlist

Template:Branchlist has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Omegatron 16:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are proposing no substitute for the branchlist template except categories 'O', Im afraid Im going to have to disgaree with you. (What a surprise!)--Light current 16:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You were too hasty Light current, as I was for a moment. The template branchlist is an old one that you and I used to experiment and is no longer needed as it does not conform to the latest layout. It also has the category Electronics which is incorrect, as we now use Category:Branchlist. No problem.

Ah but! I see he also marked Template:Branchlist/Electronics which is a very different matter. I have reverted that as I consider it vandalism given my request above and your support. Once templates are gone they are hard to reconstruct, and so should never be deleted hastily. --Lindosland 17:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Once a template is deleted, it should not be reconstructed. — Omegatron 01:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I only meant that it is a pity to lose the organisational work if someone else is going to come along and try to do it all again, under a different name, or improved scheme. I will not be doing so.

Deletion represents a rejection by the community of the premise behind these templates. They should not be recreated in any form. We pointed you to Wikipedia:Subpages and said your effort would be wasted, but you decided to do it anyway. If someone else tries to "do it all again under a different name", we will point them both this page and Wikipedia:Subpages and explain that they are wasting their time. If they continue, that's their problem.

Besides, if some miraculous event happens that suddenly makes subpages a good idea, the templates can always be undeleted. — Omegatron 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

OK on point one! But Category :Branchlist has also been proposed for deletion!--Light current 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. That one is over here. — Omegatron 01:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that this page, rather perversely now, still has a 'list of branch pages'. That list only has meaning if 'branch pages' are defined. As I understand it, the opposition is to the Root, Hub and Branch concept, and the templates are only being used as a way of ending work on the concept. Why then is the branchlist still there? Is it because some desire to link to associated pages remains, and if so does this impy continued effort at Wikipedia:Root page? --Lindosland 10:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Omegatron: On checking carfully I see that you have proposed the templates and the category (used for templates) for deletion. This leaves Wikipedia:Root page without any demonstration, or possibility of demonstration as stated there using Branchlist templates. It will also be messed up by the deletion templates appearing all over it. Do you want Wikipedia:Root page deleted, or do you intend to leave it in some form? --Lindosland 10:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I proposed all the templates in the category for deletion and Freakofnurture nominated the category itself. Originally I only tagged a few of the templates to minimize disruption. Sorry if this was unclear. Srleffler has now tagged all the rest.

Yes, this would leave the page without any demonstrations. This is the fault of those who refused to take the demonstrations out of live articles.

We don't delete policy proposals. I predict Wikipedia:Root page will eventually receive a {{rejected}} tag, though. — Omegatron 15:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Following on from all that, I am interested to know what objectors to the RP idea consider to be good practice for linking. When I started editing Wikipedia I found the 'see also' lists very useful for going back and forth between what I regarded as 'associated' articles to check what had and had not been covered already. In the process, I started moving what you might call the 'short range' links to the top of the list, and adding in more 'short range' articles as I found them, again to make the process of cross-checking while editing easy. Then I got told that nothing that was Wiki-linked in the text should ever appear in the 'see also' list (or no short-range links) - a battle I lost. Is there any consensus on this. Without these cross-links in one place I find the cross checking very difficult, unless I make a private list (as I did for a while). Believe it or not, it was this that led me to introduce Root page, and if I'd known the trouble it was to cause me I might not have bothered! Adding the 'short range' links is hard work since if you try to cross-link just 20 pages you need to to spend a lot of time adding links - hence cross-linking tends to be rather sparse and random. The original (non-template) 'branch lists' were another approach. What do you prefer now? An example of the problem came when I recently looked at Psychoacoustics and found it didn't even have a link to Equal-loudness contours which is arguably the most basic topic a user might want to go to next. Putting 'dead' links into articles is not encouraged, so here we have a chicken and egg problem in that if a page is created later it may remain isolated from its natural associates because no one has thought to link to it. Building groups of pages was my way of getting some sensible cross-linking procedure into place - never 'hierarchy'. --Lindosland 18:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently that's a real rule, though I don't know why and I've seen it broken many times. Let's try to change it.

I think psychoacoustics should definitely link to equal-loudness contours in the See also section. Other less-obvious links should not, though. Napoleon is connected to french fry if you stretch it enough, but I wouldn't expect to see either in the other's See also section.

Building groups of pages is what categories are for. — Omegatron 18:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait. I was reading the wrong section. This is more vague. — Omegatron 18:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge with electronic equipment

I removed the "merge with electronic equipment" template, because I don't think it's worth disfiguring a major article like this one with a full-width banner just for the sake of a minor editorial issue about a stub article. There is still a merge template at the top of Electronic equipment to keep the issue alive.

As for the merge itself, agree. However, if it becomes a new section in the present article, it might grow to the point where it needs to become a separate article again. But that is the Way. --Heron 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your reasons are not adequate. A mergefrom tag, as on electronic equipment, should always be mirrored by a mergeto tag, in this case on electronics. If you want to be bold, just do the merge. --Bduke 00:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved her from my talk for general comment

I'd love to make this read better - thought I was but apparently you disagree (although I don't really know what I'm doing - I am quite new!) - care to tell me why? What are your suggestions for improving it? Sam.yates 23:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Sam, I know youre trying to be helpful, but what you put in was pretty obvious really. You need to think of soething new that hasnt been put in before. Have a look round the rest of WP to see what people have put in. I hope thats helpful to you! Best wishes and no offence to you! 8-)--Light current 23:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay - that seems fine. However, although obvious, the part about all electronics design being intended for transmission of power or information does seem to be quite important. I guess it depends on the audience. Are we writing for the engineer with a PhD or the casual browser? This tenet of the field is repeated in more complicated terms at the beginning of the first section - why not state it casually at first so an unfamiliar reader knows to keep it in the back of his mind as he scrolls through the article? Also - did you not like my simple rewording (you know, the bits that had nothing to do with content really, just flow of language)? That paragraph really does sound awkward, and I think some simple changes could help it a great deal (no offense taken, though!) Sam.yates 23:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

--Light current 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we are writing for the reader with any level of knowledge from zero upto PhD and beyond! Also I would say that 99.9 % of electronics is for transmission of information.--Light current 23:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, with all that in mind, here is how I would rewrite the opening paragraph:

"The field of electronics refers to the study and use of systems that operate by controlling the flow of electrons (or other charge carriers) in devices such as thermionic valves and semiconductors. The design and construction of electronic circuits to solve practical problems is an integral technique in the field of electronics engineering, and is equally important in hardware design for computer engineering. All applications of electronics involve the transmission of either information or power. Most deal only with information.

While the study of new semiconductor devices and surrounding technology is sometimes considered a branch of physics, this article focuses on engineering aspects of electronics."

I think this reads smoothly and is a comfortable intro into the rest of the article - let me know what you think! Sam.yates 00:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I like it. Put it in! 8-)--Light current 00:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Question/Clarification

The info about inputs reads "Inputs – Electronic or mechanical sensors (or transducers), which take signals from outside sources such as *antennas* or networks (or signals which represent values of temperature, pressure, etc.) from the physical world and convert them into *current/voltage* or digital signals." With this definition, wouldn't an antenna *be* a sensor - not an outisde source. A signal enters through an antenna and becomes a voltage varying waveform, no? Sam.yates 00:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Strictly you may be correct, but antennas are generally not considered as transducers. i think transducers convert one form of signal to a voltage or current. Antennas just receive em radiation.--Light current 23:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

PS Dont forget to sign /date your posts by typing , ~~~~ Thanks!--Light current 23:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know - "A transducer is a device, usually electrical, electronic, or electro-mechanical, that converts one type of energy to another for the purpose of measurement or information transfer." An antenna would certainly seem to fit that description - it takes EM signals in and gives voltage varying waveforms out. Sam.yates 00:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, actually it takes in em radiation, and passes it down a cable to the reciever. So its not a transducer or sensor IMO!--Light current 00:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article on antenna, an antenna "can be placed in an electromagnetic field so that the field will induce an alternating current in the antenna and a voltage between its terminals." No reciever involved - it just works. Sam.yates 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats a simplified view. Antennas are not transducers in the accepted meaning of the word! 8-|--Light current 10:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Pls help! Electrical circuit...

File:Myquestionelectrics.gif

People, i need help on this circuit design, will you please? (sorry for english but i think its comprehencable :) and also sorry if i wrote this onto wrong place) Kedi 18:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

(Without doing your homework for you,) Please consider the current-handling ability of the Phototransistor and its light-versus-current "curve".

Atlant 18:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

hfe

Does anyone know what the hfe - in regards to current gain - stands for? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.247.227.150 (talk • contribs).

I don't know the answer, but I do know that if the Bipolar junction transistor doesn't already answer your question, that article's talk page is probably a better place to ask. Otherwise, the Science Reference Desk.

Atlant 22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I always understood h_fe to be Forward Current Gain. Actually, the cited article on Bipolar junction transistor does a pretty good job on this for low frequencies. (At higher frequencies you are into s-parameters).

PD 20:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

References and sources

I've just added a reference and source to the section on noise, so can the heading saying that the article contains no such references or sources be removed? PD 21:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagboard Comment

"For instance, in the beginning point to point wiring using tag boards attached to chassis were used to connect various electrical innards."

The great majority of early equipment was hardwired with no tagboards. In the 1920s the parts were attached to the board and wired together. 30s onward the bigger parts were attached to the chassis and everything else strung between them. Known as 'hardwired.' (Dates just a vague guide)

Tagboards came along later. Tabby 18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Noise

"Noise is associated with all electronic circuits. Noise is defined[1] as unwanted disturbances superposed on a useful signal that tend to obscure its information content"

If that really were its definition, then noise would not be associated with all circuits.

In reality the definition is wrong. Noise only tends to obscure signal data in some cases. For the most part it does not. Such matters are not decided by size of pedestal. Tabby 18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

How does the definition provided assert noise would not be associated with all circuits?

Noise tends to obscure a signal in all cases; it does not succeed in obscuring a signal in all cases. The definition posed by the IEEE does not require that it does so either. For example if, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in the input signal of an amplifier is 60 dB and the SNR in the output signal is 50 dB, then the amplifier has made a contribution to noise which tended to obscure the signal's information content (i.e., by reducing the SNR), but without necessarily succeeding in obscuring the signal. What assertion did I (or even the cited IEEE definition) make about pedestals that you disagree with? PD 18:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Electron Mechanics?

Please can somebody provide a citation for this? It seems at least plausible; however, I have had a look around and I cannot find other references to this; given that these are some of the first words in the article, it seems to me that this should be verified! 78.86.25.140 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thermal management

In the thermal management section of this article (and the main article), single walled carbon nanotubes should be named as successor to regular metals to control heat. See http://www.buffalo.edu/news/9998 change Printed circuit board article too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.207.26 (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Electronics manufacturing

Can the electronics manufacturing be updated to include other methods beside printed circuit boards ? Can someone also make the Chip printing article (see http://www.technologyreview.com/business/19746/ Add link to electronics manufacturing article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.193.143 (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

External link to Free Online Software

While available, you can access this free Online Software that teaches the fundamentals of Electronics, which is the hottest basic training I have seen anywhere. Go check it out! http://preview.gibsontron.com/one/?xml=tronix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.49.167.137 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

radio

how can we inprove our radio system and what are the improvements by then.Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by Symmon gathii (talk • contribs) 10:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition/lead

The definition / lead "Electronics is the branch of physics, engineering and technology" is wrong (and logically flawed too "a branch of branches"). The (main) branch of physics that is the science underpinning electronics is "solid-state". It is an engineering topic not science. I checked some other dictionary sites and they also refer to science (rather than physics) so alluding to the idea that electronics is a science in itself (which I also do not agree to) but more correct that this. Due to the other definitions, I'm flagging this here for fixing (rather than fixing myself). Let's fix this and not conflate science, engineering, and technology. Widefox; talk 06:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have removed "is the branch of physics, engineering and technology" . The lede could do with a complete rewrite. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not correct that the branch of physics is "solid-state". At one time electronics was largely not solid-sate and still today it is not exclusively solid-state. My university physics textbook on the subject was called Physical Electronics which I suggest is the correct name for the branch of physics. By the way, the foreword of that book opens with "Electronics (or electronic engineering since the two names are synonymous)... SpinningSpark 06:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead is better now, but still not right "active" is a red herring, due to passive components and insulators being part of the art. Maybe I wasn't clear enough - this is not science, so its moot. (But..while we're being pedantic...I did include "(main)" to cover myself! "solid-state" was the name used in my Physics course title & department research group at Bristol Uni undergrad degree and PhD. I suppose I should check that against the wiki consensus. Textbook names are another topic, we used H&Hill for electronics/labwork.) Widefox; talk 11:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

General

I don't know what to do about this, but 1) the opening definition on this page is circular--electronics is the study of electronic devices and 2)electrical engineering is not a subdivision of electronics; almost the opposite is true.

As to 2): One common way of putting the distinction between electrical and electronic engineering is to say that electrical engineers deal with the problems of large currents and electronics engineers deal with small ones (this is from a Web encyclopedia, and frankly, I'd never heard of it, though it makes a certain sense). Another way of making the distinction is to say that electronics concerns the modification of electrical currents to carry information.

Electrical engineering is concerned with power transmission, conversion from AC to DC, stepping voltage up or down, earthing a power supply, et al. One has to do these things to wire a house, build an electric fan, or design the ignition circuit for an automobile engine. It's nothing to do with electronic devices.

As to 1), I suspect the problem is mostly stylistic. This is not a dictionary, as someone keeps saying. So what's needed at the start is not a definition, per se, but a topic sentence. But a circular definition doesn't work.

I'd re-write, but I'm not sure what the acceptable definition of electronics is.

the above statements about the difference between electrical engineering and electronics is.. less than correct. electrical engineers design/build/study electrical circuits, which are the same things as electronic circuits. the distinctions made above is more of a distinction between power electrical engineering, and every other sort of electrical engineering. i'm going to try and fiddle the definition to reflect what they teach you in "intro to electrical engineering" --User:jkominek

I tried to find out what is being taught in "intro to Electrical engineering" in mine as well as other universities. It came out that major component is related with power, circuit theory, etc. If we look at departmental arrangements then it can be said that "electrical engg" includes power, comm, electronics, control, etc. But from a amateur point of view, electronics may not be concerned with circuit theory... --User:Ashutosh Saxena

The American Heritage Dictionary of English (searched via dictionary.com) defines the adjective electronic as

Of, based on, operated by, or otherwise involving the controlled conduction of electrons or other charge carriers, especially in a vacuum, gas, or semiconducting material.

As you can see, this definition leaves room for interpretation. Note that the distinction does not rest on the difference between high power and low power, or on information versus power transmission. How we put this information in the article is another question. -- Heron

It is insignificant whether the electrons move in a particular medium or even whether they move, but significant that their movement is controlled. Waveguy

Yes, and the means of control is also significant. Controlling the current by switching a mechanical switch on and off, or by using electromechanical devices such as relays and thermostats, is not electronics, but controlling the current by means of another current or voltage without using moving parts is electronics. -- Heron

I differ. It is problematic to try to split hairs that way, especially when you scale down to nanotechnology. At some scale, all such devices are valid electronics; though not necessarily solid state. Where do you draw the line? -- Waveguy

You have a point there. I forgot about nanotechnology. However, you wouldn't say that a relay was an electronic device, would you? There must be a line somewhere, even if it's not where I said it was. There are people who call themselves electrical engineers and others who call themselves electronic engineers, and Wikipedia needs to explain the difference, even if the distinction is blurred.

Also, I'm a bit troubled by your claim that at a small enough scale, "all such devices are valid electronics". I think that's going too far. Think about the electrical processes in electrolysis, or the signalling in nerve cells. Those things happen at atomic or molecular scales, but most people don't call them electronics. I think we are in danger of just throwing examples and counter-examples at each other, but if that's the only way we can reach a consensus, then so be it. On the other hand, we could just give up trying to make the distinction, and say "Here are three lists of electrical/electronic topics. List A contains those that more than 90% of Wikipedians who expressed a preference class as electronics, etc..." -- Heron

don't forget that electronic, electromechanical, and electrochemical devices all appear in many modern electronic circuits even on macro scale. if you try to draw any line, someone will blur it. 209.47.103.56

Someone wrote that "Richard shags his dog" - can that be removed? thanks 85.133.32.148 12:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Sam, 3 OCT 2006 13:05 BST

Theres a difference between science and engineering, and it looks to me like you're trying to use scientific definitions to describe engineering disciplines.

As we've seen here its impossible to lay down a simple, rigid and accurate distinction between electronic and electrical, so maybe the best bet is to describe them roughly and accept that there are grey areas and overlap. Tabby 18:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I once heard on a TV documentary, in the 80's, that the definition of electronics is use of a weak electrical signal, to regulate a strong signal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.67.214 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head, here's half a dozen circuit blocks that are counter-examples of that definition: diode bridge, diode clamp, low-pass filter, envelope detector, Zobel network and Wheatstone bridge, to say nothing of the whole field of power electronics. This is why "stuff you heard on TV" is not a reliable source. SpinningSpark 23:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

electronics

what is the proper way to apply the tining techiniques? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.77.113 (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Timeline

The "History of Electronics" timeline seems quite unwieldy in this article. It's just a list of events with almost no commentary. It should probably be forked to its own list-type article, trimmed to size or both (i.e. leave in the absolute highlights with a section hatnote saying, "Main Article: History of Electronics Timeline"). 0x0077BE (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm willing to turn it into a list-type article. While I do agree with you that the table is somewhat "unwieldy", I made it into a collapsible table in the bottom section in an attempt to fix that problem - I think it does the job. Also, i'm somewhat confident that I already got the majority of events needed on the list.

(HiYahhFriend (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC))

Analog Multiplier

Trying to find a home for an orphan, I added analog multiplier to the Analog Circuits section of the page. I'm not sure it fits there. Anyone who knows, please move it appropriately! Anthropos 19:02, 27 November 2003 (UTC)

Old External Link Reverted Back

There was an external link to a Electronics Project Page, Electronics Infoline, much earlier created by me, around a year ago on 1st November, 2004. [See Here] It remains there for a long period until 11th April, 2006. [See Here] and later the link is removed alongwith other commercial Link Spam and the whole is replaced by Dmoz listing.

I have just edited back the link and request opinion from other editors. There are still some links to good external sites like above. Although is now much common to insert external links to Wikipedia, I suggest to keep external links, which are at least 1 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulan (talk • contribs) 04:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Difference between AC and DC

Electricity flows in two ways; either in alternating current or AC and in direct current or DC. The word electricity comes from the fact that current is nothing more than moving electrons along a conductor, like a wire, that have been harnessed for energy. Therefore, the difference between AC and DC has to do with the direction in which the electrons flow. In DC, the electrons flow steadily in a single direction, or "forward." In AC, electrons keep switching directions, sometimes going "forwards" and then going "backwards." The power that comes from our wall outlets is AC, the more common, efficient kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.154.12 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

amplifiers

in amplifier transistors must be in active region — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharath1234 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

History of Electronic Components

This section states that Thermionic Valves "dominated electronics until the middle of the 1980s". Although the use of tubes dropped off gradually (and at different rates in different applications), radios had largely switched to tubes by the mid-1960's (as noted here) and televisions were almost entirely solid-state by the early 70's -- the two main consumer electronic devices of that time. I propose that this changed to "dominated electronics until the middle of the 1960s". This would be more consistent with the Solid state (electronics) page, which notes that "The expression ('solid sate') became prevalent in the 1950s and the 1960s, during the transition from vacuum tube technology to semiconductor diodes and transistors."

- Chris Tyler (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it depends what we mean by the vague term "dominated". From the perspective of a repair shop technician in the 70s, most people still had valve TV sets so his work would be "dominated" by valves even though new transistor designs were coming on line. Actually, valves were not completely eliminated from new TV designs until much later. There was no transistor at the time that could handle the line drive voltage. Picture tubes went later still, and I still see such TVs in some cheap hotels even today. Valves are still used in high-power transmitters, by the military, some specialist audio, and don't forget the magnetron in everybodies kitchen.

Anyway, the statement is sourced to a book explicitly on the history of valves. Before changing anything, I think we should have a source, preferably a book or scholarly paper, that is at least as reliable and even more authoritative than the current source. Either that, or refrain from talking about domination at all, just give the actual facts. SpinningSpark 23:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

To state that vacuum tubes dominated electronics till the 1980’s is absurd. First the reference document does not say dominate it says they played a leading role. Even so the article is edited by people with extensive but exclusive vacuum tube experience. Their statement is correct for the field of microwave and high power transmission. It does not apply to the electronic industry in general. Except for a few specialty areas transistors have dominated the industry since the 1960’s. Television was slow to be transistorized because they had their designs that worked and the CRT required high voltage control that was not especially suited to transistors. Also the limited life of the vacuum tube suited the television industry very well. They did not dominate radio design and certainly not computers since the 1960’s. The repair shop technician is hardly a measure of electronic domination. It took years for the TV repairman to learn how to deal with transistors and printed circuits. In the 1960’s people measured the quality of their radios by the number of transistors it had. Computers abandoned vacuum tubes in the mid 1950’s. I did professional designs for a huge number of electronic circuits since 1958 and designed only one vacuum tube circuit and that was a test with no practical use. Transistors have dominated most of the electronic industry since the 1960’s and the computer industry since the 1950’s. Siting a book on the history of vacuum tubes is hardly a credible source of what might have taken over its domination. The vacuum tube gave us a great fifty years of the electronics revolution. They have held their place in high power applications but not the electronics industry in general. This may be an example of why simply siting a hard copy reference does not necessarily provide reliable information.Thingmaker (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend this passage to the death, but what I will insist on is a source at least as authoritative as the one already in the article before anything is changed. The problem here is partly that the phrase is vague and to some extent a matter of opinion, and opinions are going to vary. What might be better is something factual, like the production figures of transistors versus valves. My recollection of the 1960s is that there were still plenty of valve radio arounds. Portable radios were inevitably transsistorised, but not always radios in the home. Computer design was a somewhat niche market, mostly of interest only to big business, and did not have the central role in electronics that it has today. Anyway, as I say, we should work from sources, not personal recollections. SpinningSpark 11:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I did some editing on the History of electronic components article. I think you may approve. If not I know you can back it out. I hope you approve! Only trying to help.Thingmaker (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Electronics lab

I am quite certain Ohm’s Law and Kirchhoff’s law are not empirical. They are facts and the foundation of electronic theory. An Electronics lab typically is where designs are built and tested. The designs are developed normally using proven theory. The testing is to verify the specific design not the known and accepted theory of electronics.Thingmaker (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Lab, upper case L, is usually the building where new development takes place. It might have many labs, lower case l, as well as offices and support. It would be the workplace of many Electrical Engineers and technicians. Electrical Engineers design electronic devices as well as high power devices.Thingmaker (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The section is awful and deserves to be zapped and done over again. However, I would take issue with Ohm's and Kirchhoff's laws are not empirical. They both were most certainly discovered empirically. True, they were later justified from theory but only if certain assumptions were made. They are certainly not the foundation of electronic theory. We can say they are central to circuit analysis, but they are not the foundation of circuit analysis theory—that would be Maxwell's equations. Ohm's law is particulary difficult to justify in theory requiring modelling of the atomic structure of the conductor. This is commonly done via the Drude model. A model is not a theory, thus Ohm's law is only true in situations in which the Drude (or equivalent) model applies. SpinningSpark 03:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

In my 32+ years working as an electrical engineer and designing hundreds of electronic circuits of all kinds and teaching others the design theory, I spent thousands of hours in electronics labs. Never did I or my co-workers ever spend any time there to verify Ohm’s or Kirchhoff’s law. Nearly all our designs were based on these laws and they never failed us. If a design uses a resistor Ohm’s law defines its value. If the circuit has a node of connecting components Kirchhoff’s law defines the sum of their currents. These laws are the basis of any reliable electronic design. Maxwell’s name seldom came up and if it did it was more likely related to magnetics. Some time might be spent in a school lab to demonstrate the laws to a student but most design engineers know to trust them as basic laws of electronic design. The three times I knew of engineers declaring the laws failed it turned out their understanding or instrumentation was the source of the error. These are facts that any skilled electrical circuit design engineer will verify. I am certain I have said enough.

I agree the article should be replaced with something more relevant. If no one objects I might give it a try. You can always undo anything you don’t approve of.Thingmaker (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have interpreted my statement that these laws are not the foundation of electronic theory as meaning these laws are wrong. Of couse that is not what I meant, and of course they work in circuit design, but first of all there are limitations to where we can apply the idea of "circuit" at all. In fact, there are some very common circuit situations where the laws do not apply, but we both inately know not to apply them there so become blind to the limitations. A diode does not obey Ohm's law. Neither does a capacitor. A single plate of a capacitor does not obey Kirchhoff's current law; current goes in, but none comes out. The fact that we do not commonly invoke the Maxwell equations is beside the point. It does not meant that they are not the more fundamental, it just means that most of the time the simplifying assumptions of the circuit concept can be applied. SpinningSpark 16:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say about laws. So will someone rewrite the section about Electronic Lab? Will someone else do it or do you want me to try? If me, it will take me a few days since I am working on another section. I would say nothing about empirical laws being tested and probably not much of what we discussed. It would be more of an account of what is done in an Electronic Lab both design and test and why it is done.Thingmaker (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with you rewriting it. Pinging user:Goatboy22 as he inserted the material with this edit. SpinningSpark 13:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I made a minor change to fix the empirical and laws discussion. I hope this meets with approval. I think more changes might be helpful. Possibly just changing the title to reflect the simulation aspect rather than "lab" in general might do the job. Electronics lab is a very broad topic. Maybe "Electronic simulation" would work.Thingmaker (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Improvement time

"Vacuum tubes (Thermionic valves) were one of the earliest electronic components."

they came an awful long time after pith balls, condensers & other components

"They were almost solely responsible for the electronics revolution of the first half of the Twentieth Century. They took electronics from parlor tricks and gave us radio, television, phonographs, radar, long distance telephony and much more.

Radio & record players pre-date valves in fact.

"They played a leading role in the field of microwave and high power transmission as well as television receivers until the middle of the 1980s.[2] Since that time, solid state devices have all but completely taken over. Vacuum tubes are still used in some specialist applications such as high power RF amplifiers, cathode ray tubes, specialist audio equipment, guitar amplifiers and some microwave devices."

Well, Reference 2, History of electron tubes edited by Sogo Okamura says:

"Electron tubes have played the leading role in electronic equipment up until the middle of the 1980's. Then, solid state devices, such as transistors and integrated circuits, replaced electron tubes in various application, and accelerated the electronic age."

First this reference does not back up what the wiki article says, which is something different. Second, it simply is not true. Anyone that was involved in electronics in the 80s knows what type of devices they were working on, and for the overwhelming majority of us it was transistors & ICs, as it was in the 70s too. Just because someone writes something does not make it so. The only sensible conclusion is that Mr. Okamura wasn't around in the 80s.

In the real world, transistors largely took over from valves in the 1960s. I say largely, as they took longer to disappear from a minority of tasks, every microwave oven still uses a magnetron, which is a thermionic tube, and they do still have niche apps.

No, this is not original research. It takes no research and nothing original for electronic engineers to remember what they and other engineers were working on in the 80s.

If this article is to have any chance of becoming a decent article, this cockeyed claim has to go. I'm deleting the reference, and hope no-one is fool enough to put it back.

The branches of electronics reference is a) a comment left on a website by a visitor b) leaves out several well known ones c) I'd love to know the supposed difference between semiconductor and semiconductor electronics :)

There's also

• rf
• robotics
• power electronics
• computer engineering
• medical
• etc etc

"after all, all aspects of the real physical world are essentially analog, so digital effects are only realized by constraining analog behavior."

So as well as being pregnant or not, one can also be partly pregnant?

"One rarely finds modern circuits that are entirely analog."

really? As I look around me among my modern stuff I see all analogue audio amps, power supplies, battery chargers, multimeters, testgear, radios, RC lighting ballasts, a dimmer, motor speed controls, audio & rf distribution systems, etc etc.

This article is in poor shape at the moment. Its a start, but some unlikely claims are really doing it no favours. Maybe its time for some editors to accept they've done what they can & that there are people that can take this article further at this point in its development. Tabby (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ternary

"Ternary (with three states) logic has been studied, and some prototype ternary computers were made decades ago. Binary has proven preferable."

The above was reverted with an objection to binary being preferable. How can I put this... for several decades now NO commercial ternary computers have been made. Just about ALL have been binary, and NONE ternary. The entire planet's computer sector has chosen binary over ternary. Clear enough? Tabby (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That's clear enough, but you still cannot say that binary is superior without a source. This site says the opposite. Nor can you imply that all research in ternary stopped decades ago. There are many recent papers on ternary, especially for optical computers 2003200520142014. In fact, the subject seems to have been continuously researched since the 1960s. It is certainly going to be true that there would be big economic difficulties in switching to ternary given the established binary in manufacturing, but it by no means follows that ternary does not have advantages, or that it is not actively studied, or that it will not be used in the future. SpinningSpark 18:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I need to check I'm clear on your position here, because I'm baffled by it. The entire computer industry planet-wide has decided binary is the way to go, not ternary, but you would place more faith in a reference, which is nothing more than one person saying something.

You know what, this is beyond ridiculous. Enjoy putting bs in the article. I'm done. Tabby (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to take such a combative position. I am not trying to put "bs in the article". And yes, we do set great store on sources here. SpinningSpark 09:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand Tabby’s frustration here. Citations go both ways. You equally cannot say ternary is better than binary without citing a decent source. The Setun history page linked above is hardly an adequate source. It briefly mentions the design of logic elements using coils and diodes (building computers looked very different in 1958), and makes some claims about speed and efficiency (compared to what?). The article itself cites the Brusentsov bio from the same site. The only discussion about power consumption and reliability I can find in that article is this (my bold):

According to the USSR Council of Ministers directive commercial production of the computer was trusted to the plant of mathematical machinery in Kazan '. Unfortunately the plant administration did not demonstrate any interest for production of big series, since “Setun” was too cheap. Only 15 till 20 machines a year were assembled, and even those for not very long. The arguments that it was very reliable and efficient no matter where it was installed, in Kaliningrad or Dushanbe , Odessa or Yakutsk (extreme North-East), and its lasting “heavy-duty” operation practically didn't need spare parts, did have no influence. A number of orders was received from customers of some European countries but also without response.

A passing comment about one specific machine built in 1958. Not really strong support for the claim. Maybe there is some theoretical (or practical) reason why ternary operations should be more efficient than binary ones - and that would be an excellent addition to the article. But I have to agree with Tabby here. To simply ignore that (to the best of my knowledge) every single commercially available computer uses binary logic, and make shaky claims based on a single machine built almost 60 years ago, is bizarre.

Tabby - I hope you don't give up. But I understand your frustration. I have almost stopped editing technical articles on WP for similar reasons. GyroMagician (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gyromagician, I think you have misunderstood my position. I am not trying to insert a statement that ternary is superior. Nor does the article say that. I neither want to make the claim, nor do I propose using the Russian computer as a ref as if it were current. I reverted Tabby's edit because by saying ternary was only ever used "decades ago" it inserted the implied POV that ternary is no use and should be forgotten about except by historians. This may be true, but it requires a source before it can be said in Wikipedia's voice. In fact, ternary is being actively researched for optical computers as I pointed out above. There is far from a lone voice involved here.

The usual reasoning for using binary, or rather, the argument against using more than two logic levels, is that it will reduce the noise immunity, assuming the maximum usable level is fixed. However, most of the proposals for optical computers are proposing using two orthogonal polarisations. I don't know much about this kind of communication, but I would guess that using two polarisations in a ternary system will yield close to the same noise immunity as a binary system using one polarisation. Thus, the main advantage of binary no longer applies, but the ternary system has close to 60% improvement in bit density. That might well explain the current considerable interest in the system. SpinningSpark 11:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

The basic definition of electronics isn't clear from this article. It starts out suggesting that electronic circuits are electrical circuits that contain an active component. However active components include things like batteries, implying that an electronic circuit could be made from a battery and a resistor. A later section then says "Some common electronic components are capacitors, inductors, resistors, diodes, transistors, etc.", suggesting that electronic components don't even need to be active, in which case there's no difference between an electrical circuit and an electronic circuit.

If the distinction of electronics from electrics is to have any meaning, I think it must first define "electronic components" (which somehow includes vacuum tubes and transistors but not batteries) and then define an electronic circuit as an electrical circuit that contains at least one electronic component. ghouston (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Fuzzy Electronics sounds like imagination.

Unless there is actually a produced fuzzy electronics device in existence, shouldn't it be removed from the pillars of electronics section? It would be embarrassing if this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.139.70 (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Fuzzy electronics is not mentioned anywhere in this article except in the see also section which is a reasonable place to put it. Existence is not one of our criteria for inclusion; the main ones are notability and verifiability. If such devices don't exist, it is strange that that applications books exist such as Introduction to Applied Fuzzy Electronics and Fuzzy Logic for Embedded Systems Applications. As for an actual example, I am pretty sure that my satnav uses fuzzy logic when plotting routes as it frequently comes up with different routes for exactly the same journey. It does not consider every possible combination of roads, it just stops when it finds one that is good enough. The search term satnav fuzzy logic returns hundreds of scholarly papers. SpinningSpark 14:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please help me understand this. Isn't a model for information processing something else from electronics? There isn't anything physical about the algorithms is there? Isn't that the fuzzy logic? It's seems like it's an application and not physical hardware that enables fuzzy logic. Are there specific fuzzy electronic components that make a device fuzzy? It seems to me like all this fuzziness could occur on microcontroller code alone.

You are arguing here about nothing more than a see also link. The article exists, so it is relevant to have in see also. You can't make it go away by deleting all the links to it. If you want it gone, WP:AFD is the place to discuss that. By the way, I would say that a shot-noise random number generator was an example of hardware fuzzy electronics. I would also say that something doesn't have to be hardware to be electronics in the modern conception of the field. SpinningSpark 17:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It's right there, in the first section after the contents box, listed as a branch of electronics. Following the link, you will find a stub article, including the line No electronic device actually exists that uses fuzzy logic. I agree with unsigned that it doesn't belong there, so I'll boldly remove it. Is fuzzy logic important? Of course. Is it a fundamental branch of electronics? I don't think so. Following your logic (Spinningspark), I could equally argue that cartography is a fundamental topic in electronics because your satnav is an electronic device and it uses maps. That would clearly be nonsense. GyroMagician (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely going senile. I was convinced I was looking at the see also section. I agree that it is not a fundamental branch of electronics. That section has a few other problems as well. SpinningSpark 14:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the sentence you quoted (about devices not existing) was inserted by the OP at the same time as starting this thread. If true, the article should simply be redirected to fuzzy logic, but I am far from convinced that it is true. SpinningSpark 14:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

As I suspected, the OP is talking out of his arse, hardware implementations of fuzzy electronics have been around since the 1980s. I have added some sourced history to the fuzzy electronics article. On that basis, I am going to add the link back to the see also section (but not the branches list) (it's already there). SpinningSpark 16:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Your memory is becoming a little fuzzy? ;-) I agree that FL belongs under 'see also', so I think we have this sorted. Good spot on the fuzzy electronics page, and some nice additions. I'll try to look over it when I have time. GyroMagician (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

eletronics-microwave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.175.151 (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to the author(s) from the Tatar Wikipedia participants

Thank you, the author(s) of this article. We translated your article into the Tatar language.--A.Khamidullin (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Electronics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170622015020/http://teletechsvc.net/books/DOE/volume_1.pdf to http://teletechsvc.net/books/DOE/volume_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170622005905/http://teletechsvc.net/books/DOE/volume_2.pdf to http://teletechsvc.net/books/DOE/volume_2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170621235527/http://teletechsvc.net/books/DOE/volume_3.pdf to http://teletechsvc.net/books/DOE/volume_3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170621234816/http://teletechsvc.net/books/DOE/volume_4.pdf to http://teletechsvc.net/books/DOE/volume_4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This Article Needs Improvement - I will begin.

There is a a lot of overlap between the terms "electrical" and "electronic". I will try to clarify. Also, better citations are needed. Avoid dictionary definitions -textbooks and encyclopedias are preferred. Codwiki (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Recycling

Electronics is not designed to be recycled. That explains why the article doesn't mention recycling. Should it? - Shiftchange (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

A section on it would be nice, given the current global resource crisis. With some thought in design, electronic devices can be recycled or parts reused.

I might improve this article when I get around to it. Liftyee (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)