User talk:86.83.155.44

D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. - [1] - and in nl:GTL8 on 3 & 4 by [2], as: [3] of HGA in The Hague. For QED see: [4] or [5] and [6] besides [7] plus: Bibliography.

Semi-Static Archive

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

IQ	This user's Intelligence Quotient was roughly between 160 and 170.

Sysyphus: Ummagumma Поклонник +> Pink Floyd

This user knows that there is no dark side of the moon really — matter of fact it's all dark.

40pxThis user wishes you were here.

This user is a fan of Genesis in all of its forms. Supper's Ready!

This user wants everyone to know that the Collectors (album) is never been classified as Caravan (album)

This user owns over 70 audio CDs.

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (86.83.155.44) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! --SSBohio 13:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Light rail:

Your recent edit to Light rail (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. Check: Dutch → nl:Gebruiker:86.83.155.44 from: ing. D.A. Borgdorff, MASc E.E. PEng C.L. with [8] and [9] or [10] → 86.83.155.44 14:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Stale From the list of town tramway systems with two book references:
  

Gragt, Frits van der. - 1968. "Europe's Greatest Tramway Network" (No ISBN). Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill.
Borgdorff, Ing. D. A., and Dr. H. D. Ploeger LL.M. (ed.) - 2000. "HTM Light Rail Vehicle GTL8" (ISBN 90-9013935-4). The Hague, Netherlands: Association HTV.

• For Norwegia see User talk page: no:Brukerdiskusjon:86.83.155.44
• For Spanish see User talk page: es:Usuario Discusión:86.83.155.44
• For Portugal see User talk page: pt:Usuário Discussão:86.83.155.44
• For Basque see also User page: eu:Lankide Eztabaida:86.83.155.44
• For France see User talk page: fr:Discussion Utilisateur:86.83.155.44
• For Finland see User talk page: fi:Keskustelu Käyttäjästä:86.83.155.44
• For Romania see User talk page too: ro:Discuţie Utilizator:86.83.155.44
• Multi Famam Conscientiam Pauci Verentur. Ut Sementum Feceris Ita Metes. Ora Et Labora. Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit. Virtute Nil Præstantius Nil Pulchrius. Omnia Vincit Amor. Præclarum Quidam Veritas. - dAb - FRIEN.

PS: Ich bin ehemalig Haupt-Entwerfer der de:Straßenbahn Den Haag - Ingenieur de:Quantenelektrodynamik und de:Leistungselektronik = VDE: 546934 & 28878 - VDI: 19958957 - KIVI/NIRIA: 6638 - COITI: 1940. Immer Achtung: 86.83.155.44

• Id (bijvoorbeeld ISBN-nummer) [?] Status Boektitel Auteur [?] Gebieden [?]

ISBN 9789080586512 Register en Beknopte Genealogie Borgdorff - Borgdorff, D.A. [NL] ISBN 9789080586529 Materiële en Gravitationele Elektromagnetische Energie - Vallée, René-Louis - Borgdorff, D.A. (ed.) [NL] \\// ISBN 9789080586536 Parenteel van Andreas Borgdorff (geboren in 1702) - Borgdorff, Dorus André - (m.m.v.) Borgdorff, Jan [NL]

Van der Pol oscillator

D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC). For QED see: [11] or [12], and [13] - PS: de niet-lineair systeem Van der Pol relaxatie-vergelijking is hier op wikipedia onvindbaar, dus bij de engelse voor zo'n groot Nederlander als volgt te lezen:

• Balthasar van der Pol & J van der Mark (1928): The Heartbeat considered as a Relaxation oscillation, and an Electrical Model of the Heart.
  Philips Magazine Suppl. No. 6 pp 763–775
• Van der Pol & Bremmer: Operational Calculus. Cambridge 1964
• Selected Scientific Papers: North-Holland Publishing Company 1960 - 2 vol's

In dynamics, the Van der Pol oscillator (named for Dutch physicist Balthasar van der Pol) is a type of nonconservative oscillator with nonlinear damping. It evolves in time according to the second order differential equation:

${d^{2}x \over dt^{2}}-\mu (1-x^{2}){dx \over dt}+x=0$

where x is the position coordinate — which is a function of the time t, and μ is a scalar parameter indicating the strength of the nonlinear damping. It can be proven via Liénard's Theorem that there exists a limit cycle for the undriven Van der Pol oscillator, thus making it an example of a Liénard system.

Eén en ander in verband met mogelijk oscillatie-soort relaxatiefunctie vragen. D.A. Borgdorff - 86.83.155.44 7 mrt 2008 19:21 (CET)

Gelukkig dat wetenschap, logica, zindelijk denken, en gezond verstand onlosmakelijk met elkaar verbonden zijn. Thomass 7 mrt 2008 22:48 (CET) Nogmaals mijn grote waardering. → [14] & [15] •

PS: Relevante links: http://www.ovcentraal.nl/nederland/tram.php.

Van ir. J.W. Sluiter overzicht Spoor & Tramwegen: ISBN 90-5345-224-9

Oud elektrodynamisch hoofdontwikkelaar-ingenieur dubbelgeleed HTM GTL8-trammaterieel: D.A. Borgdorff —86.83.155.44 11:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

References

• Besides QED → [16] and for tubes: [17] and [18]
• Volgens de meestal gebruikte formule om beslissingen te creëren, uitgaande van het morfogenetische veld: $x_{n+1}=A\,x_{n}\,(\mathrm {mod} \,M)\,$. O/A.: [19] - [20]
• Dit is ook te zien aan de Schrödinger-operatoren in de plaats-ruimte:

$(xp-px)\psi =x{\frac {\hbar }{i}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}\psi -{\frac {\hbar }{i}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}(x\psi )=x{\frac {\hbar }{i}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}\psi -{\frac {\hbar }{i}}\psi -x{\frac {\hbar }{i}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x}}\psi =i\hbar \psi$.

Deze formule laat onomstotelijk zien, dat wij niet alles mogen begrijpen, daar de belangrijkste parameters niet in bra-kets zijn getransformeerd, welke voor de zon in onzeker sneeuwwit licht zouden veranderen.

• Een en ander berust op het onzekerheidsprincipe van Heisenberg.

About the 'De Broglie wavelength' equations

We can get Debroglie relation from the equation of Einstein and Plank:
$E=hf=pc$
Where E is the energy possesed by an arbitrary photon relative to an intertial frame of reference, h is planck constant, f is its frequency in that frame.
$p={\frac {hf}{c}}={\frac {h}{\lambda }}$
Where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the photon. We can then postulate that every moving body will have certain wavelength. The equation is experimentally proven to be correct for every body with non-zero rest mass. Similarly,
$f={\frac {pc}{h}}={\frac {mc^{2}}{h}}$
Where m is the relativistic mass of that photon. We can again postulate that every body with non-zero rest mass will have the frequency showing on the above equation. Since
$v_{p}=f\lambda$ where $v_{p}$ is the phase velocity. $v_{p}={\frac {c^{2}}{v}}$ Apparently, frequency of a body with non-zero rest mass is not directly proportional to its kinetic energy but its total energy or total relativistic mass. Thljcl 14:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your math is at $pc=mc^{2}$. I assume you got at it by setting $E=pc$ equal to $E=mc^{2}$, but the first is the total energy of a massless particle, the second the total energy of a massive particle at rest.

Part of what was so unexpected about de Broglie's hypothesis was that he took equations for a massless particle and played with them until found something new that's true for massive particles. Unfortunately, it doesn't usually work that way. — Laura Scudder ☎ 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For a particle with non-zero rest mass, when its momentum is zero relative to an inertial frame of reference, we find that

$E=m_{0}c^{2}$

Where E is the total energy, $m_{0}$is the rest mass of the particle, c is the speed of light in vacuum. When it possesses momentum in the same frame,

$E={\sqrt {m_{0}^{2}c^{4}+p^{2}c^{2}}}$$=\gamma m_{0}c^{2}$

$p=\gamma m_{0}v$

$\gamma =\;{\frac {1}{\sqrt {1-{\frac {v^{2}}{c^{2}}}}}}$

When v=0, $\gamma$=1,

$E=m_{0}\;c^{2}$ Classically, we define momentum as a product of mass and velocity. We can still use this definition. However,mass of a particular body is no longer a constant but is frame-dependent and is a function of its velocity. Whatever frame it is, its rest mass will be the same. Therefore, many or most scientists today would like to regard rest mass is the only definition of mass because variable mass may lead to a confusion. For me, I would still use both frame-dependent mass and invariant mass. In my maths, m always means relativistic mass. I will use $m_{0}$ denotes rest mass. Therefore,

$E=mc^{2}$

$E_{k}\;=(m-m_{0})c^{2}=(\gamma -1)m_{0}\;c^{2}$

Where $E_{k}$ denotes kinetic energy. For a particle with zero rest mass such as photon, its kinetic energy is ill-defined. The expression $E=mc^{2}$ is different from $E_{0}\;=m_{0}\;c^{2}$ where $E_{0}$ is a particle rest energy. I use E to denotes total energy. Wherever there's energy, there's always a certain amount of mass associate with it, though there may not be the rest energy. Certainly, photon has zero rest mass. It carries both momentum and energy.

$p=mc$

$E=hf=mc^{2}=pc$

Since many people dislike the term of relativistic mass, there's still an another way to derive the expression $E=pc$. That is from $E={\sqrt {m_{0}^{2}c^{4}+p^{2}c^{2}}}$ Let $m_{0}=0$,

$E=pc$

Therefore, the derivation of De Broglie is correct with his own postulate. He postulated that all body with non-zero rest mass also have wave-particle duality in nature just as photon does. He personally thinks that nature seems to love symmetry. Now, we discover that there is a violation of symmetery in weak interaction.

Thljcl 17:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your assertion made on 25 March 2007 is still incorrect, Thljcl. You said, "Apparently, frequency of a body with non-zero rest mass is not directly proportional to its kinetic energy but its total energy or total relativistic mass," which simply is not true, even by your own ``derivation. You state that the frequency of a body with non-zero rest mass is proportional to its total energy (including rest mass), but yet your last post assumes $m_{0}=0$ within the derivation -- so you've only shown that the frequency of a body with zero rest mass is proportional to its total energy. This is obviously true because the de Broglie relation contains the momentum term $p$, which from the equation

$E={\sqrt {m_{0}^{2}c^{4}+p^{2}c^{2}}}$,

which you state above, clearly has no dependence on rest mass $m_{0}$, as you previously asserted. Dchristle 20:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Article "Phase velocity" they use the total energy instead of just the kinetic one to define the "frequency of matter waves". I don't know, what is correct, but I think the wrong one should be corrected, maybe including some motivation why it should be the total or just the kinetic energy.

• René-Louis Vallée: L'énergie électromagnétique matérielle et gravitationnelle, Masson & Cie, éditeurs - Paris, 1971 — traduction libre par : D.A. Borgdorff, relativement: "hypothése d'existence des milieux énergétiques et d'une valeur limite supérieure du champ électrique". Ibidem via la SEPED – Paris, 1978 – Voir aussi: La théorie Synergétique Template:Fr et [21] → 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Transposed replications

From here with title "Thanks again" in resumption from D.A. Borgdorff and Ccfr: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Woodwalker, I herewith like to really thank you again for supporting me in the astounding a days long block up from Oscar, whose arbitrarily controversial knocking completely surprised me awe into silent awareness. So, then I have to reconsider my decision to write again, in spite of rehabilitation by the forum, the gracious action of Ellywa included. Astonishing ..., but as usual with all regards from D.A. Borgdorff, e.i. etc. by fixed-ADSL-IP: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC) ... PS: Just before his blocking at 14:46, out of nowhere came a socalled Anon-IP: 129.125.157.73 at 14:36 reverting (with comment) my edits in own TP, upon which Oscar 10 minutes later responded, curiously -- see history of those pages. Above-mentioned IP is from R-University Groningen, and supposed only used to tackle me I don't like this to sort further out. With excuses for my CE/AE-spelling errors, truly Yours: D.A. Borgdorff, by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Estimable Sir; I'm sorry to disturb you again, but yet an other block up now from mrs. Moira came unexpectedly after my complaints being thrown on a sort of blacklist by abovementioned CEO. I've tried to reach the - by mr. De Roo recommended - IRC-channel, but my typed reaction unfortunately didn't came through and I was even banned there after accusation of lurking while trying to contact for explanation again and again and onwards. So I'll have to report it here again with - in the mean time - utmost amazement, wondering about the level of arguments affected in numbers. With best regards I again remain sincerely yours: D.A. Borgdorff from number IP: 86.83.155.44 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear mr. Borgdorff, I already discussed your last block on wiki.nl with mrs. Moira. I am afraid she was rather uncompromisable in the matter, due to the large amount of what she and others call "useless edits" from your side. Fact is that anonimous edits have to be checked on wikipedia, and that's not very entertaining work I can assure. So I would like to suggest that you stop editing talk pages and start editing articles; or just open an account so that your edits don't bother the team that checks anonimous edits any longer.

When somebody does not show his or her name at the chat that is considered "lurking" and unpolite, because others are having confidential talk there and do show their names. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that you were "booted" from the chat.

I hope you will at least think about opening a real account because it will make life easier for everyone! Kind regards and yours sinc., Woodwalker (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: For message Mwpnl, see under blocking mediation. — D.A. Borgdorff - Electrodynamics & Power Electronics. — 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The nature of mass as a vortex of space-time

I found also the article a little bit confusing, excessively technique, so I introduced a better philosophical beginning to explain people what truly equivalence means: that we cannot distinguish gravitational forces and masses from acceleration. Thus the universe according to Einstein is in perpetual acceleration, as the forces and masses become under the 'strong' principle of equivalence (which Einstein favored in his seminal works and letters) accelerated flows of lineal and cyclical movement. I believe the beginning is not clear about the essence of this principle, which is - as all Relativity - simple in its appareance but with deep philosophical implications that change our vision of the Universe: an eternally accelerating one, seems today proved by the observation that space accelerates between galaxies and black holes. Where black holes are the most massive vortex, accelerating at c = light-speed.

Though the introduction was reverted and I wont place it again, I believe it is not clear at all the essence of the principle, which is the fact that acceleration and force are homologous concepts. I left your original introduction, though I think the equivalence between acceleration and gravitational force should rather be the first sentence and now is not clear. What I reposted, and please do not erase it as it is new material, that doesn't replace anything but is very essential to our modern understanding of relativity and mass, is a concept which has been around for a century among relativists, albeit poorly formalized, so: the nature of mass as an accelerated vortex, that is equivalence between cyclical acceleration and mass. Mass as a vortex of space-time is the relativist alternative to the concept of mass sponsored by quantum physicists as produced by particle-quanta. Since Einstein, the concept of mass as a vortex of space-time curving the acceleration of gravity into a cyclical movement ("time curves space") must be included in any serious encyclopedia that deals with all aspects of relativity. In my view perhaps because there are 10 quantum physicists (so: more jobs) for each relativist, the articles on relativity need some further reworking and extension. Please do not erase a mass part. If you want to change it, let us discuss how to include the concept of mass as a vortex of space-time, I will include quotes and citations if I have sometime to go to the library and get them.
Thanks Homocion (talk • contribs) 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Ccfr: Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Temporary translocation

Dear and learned Bob, with hesitation herewith disturbing you, I will have to draw your attention to the fact I already have been replying your questions three times, although none of the involved six administrators published their identity and/or c.v. nor even answered or responded equally, with the exception of mr. Robotje, who in the meantime abandoned, so to be assumed that they apparently feel elevated superiorly above your mediation. Considering the fourth more and absurd blocking again, I'd have to conclude too much opposition and class-justice to take seriously into account a sufficient and proper or sound judgement, which (but) consequently ought to be reserved. In addtion: watch- or black-lists, or such warning-templates are totally incorrect, and so the like have to be removed to erase, before I 'll start to write again. With utmost regards and esteeming sincerely yours D.A. Borgdorff from: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Retrospection to blocking mediation

Beste Bob, nu maar even in het Nederlands: bedankt voor uw ondersteuning. Door al die rare acties wordt ik nu zelfs verdacht uit onverdachte hoek. Waar gaat dit in vredesnaam nog over.? Hoe kun je nu nog representatief en rustig werken bij voortdurende verdenkingen of verdachtmaking met blokkades, die het schrijven en bijhorende discussies als met Mdd of Tom blijven verstoren. Ik moet me maar telkenmale -- als ware ik crimineel -- blijven verantwoorden en daar heb ik géén zin en tijd meer voor. Als dat huidige blok niet snel wordt opgeheven, zal ik me moeten beraden op andere stappen wegens bijv. laster en andere overtredingen van recent bekend gemaakte internetverplichtingen. Vorenstaande doelt slechts op geconstateerde feiten. Alsnog hartelijke groet in hoge achting: Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Bob, because you have not reacted to above requests to abolish the blocking in direction with involved administrators,.. I deleted the last part of my objections, and will continue to proceed -- but for the fact of duration of time too long. With best regards, D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. - etc. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Evermore clean slates

• • Since I do not appreciate my full name being available on Wikipedia I removed it. Everyone can look up my real name on the internet, it's not that hard to find. This however, does not mean that I want it published, with a link to my photograph, without my permission and knowledge. Mwpnl (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak auxiliaries

Estimable and very learned Dolledre; sooner than expected I will have to ask you for some kind of blocking mr. Baas and mr. Robotje c.s. from editing -- if possible -- my pages ever again. Your nice picture of La Brugeoise reminding me of many nearly long forgotten years visiting the BN Consortium on behalf of HTM tramway vehicles for inspection and approval as CEO, i.e. e.g. nl:GTL8 & PCC streetcars. Owing to the present infirmities, I will unfortunately have to approach you here to accomplish written matters. On the same way I did post a message on Bob.v.R's page by exception too. In the mean time with best regards I remain faithfully your D.A. Borgdorff, MASc E.E. PEng by: 86.83.155.44 20:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC).

Die nuwegnominatie kun je vergeten, het is in principe not done om artikelen uit andermans gebruikersnaamruimte te nomineren voor verwijdering. Josq 25 jan 2008 15:55 (CET)

Seguir el pulso

Estimado Don T.: muchas gracias por la ayuda a favor de opinión con respecto al antear el ambiente para desbloquear mi asunto. Cordial saludo: D.A. Borgdorff - ing° eléctrico recurso: —86.83.155.44 (discusión) 10:48 9 jun 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir Dmitri Nikolaj and estimated mr. Van Schie: I herewith like to really thank you for your helpfull support in the case of my recent astonishing blocking up from further editing again. In the mean time with best regards I remain faithfully yours: D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. - MASc. by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cfr.: Colleagues = Celloman - Rikipedia - Lidewij - Balko - Art - Edo - Sonty - Koolstra - Londenp - Richardkiwi - Diogenes - Itsme - Drirpeter - Mastertim -Tûkkã - B.Dijkstra - WDV - Wikix - Mtthshksm - Erik Warmelink - JAM. → Regards: Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking probably being supposed to must have so to be stopped definitely in this continuously handling of matters regarding my person. Unfortunately: in the moment can't see it differently. Esteemed regards with thanks again. As usual: D.A. Borgdorff - from 86.83.155.44 (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear dAb, we're still trying to get rid of that ridiculous block... don't loose faith too soon. Regards, sincerely, DTBone (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage Tom Meijer: "Helaas" - 86.83.155.44 (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Monopole Maxwell's equations

Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism relate the electric and magnetic fields to the motions of electric charges. The standard form of the equations provide for an electric charge, but posit no magnetic charge. Except for this, the equations are symmetric under interchange of electric and magnetic field. The fact that the electric and magnetic fields can be written in a symmetric way is specific to the fact that space is three-dimensional. When the equations of electromagnetism are extrapolated to other dimensions, the magnetic field is described as a rank 2 antisymmetric tensor, while the electric field remains a true vector. In dimensions other than 3, these two objects do not have the same number of components. In fact, symmetric equations can be written when all charges are zero, and this is how the wave equation is derived.

Fully symmetric equations can also be written if one allows for the possibility of "magnetic charges" analogous to electric charges.[22] With the inclusion of a variable for these magnetic charges, say $\ \rho _{m}$, there will also be a "magnetic current" variable in the equations, $\ \mathbf {j} _{m}$. The extended Maxwell's equations are as follows, in cgs units:

Name	Without Magnetic Monopoles	With Magnetic Monopoles
Gauss's law:	$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} =4\pi \rho _{e}$	$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} =4\pi \rho _{e}$
Gauss' law for magnetism:	$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =0$	$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =4\pi \rho _{m}$
Faraday's law of induction:	$-\nabla \times \mathbf {E} ={\frac {1}{c}}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}$	$-\nabla \times \mathbf {E} ={\frac {1}{c}}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}+{\frac {4\pi }{c}}\mathbf {j} _{m}$
Ampère's law (with Maxwell's extension):	$\nabla \times \mathbf {B} ={\frac {1}{c}}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {E} }{\partial t}}+{\frac {4\pi }{c}}\mathbf {j} _{e}$	$\nabla \times \mathbf {B} ={\frac {1}{c}}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {E} }{\partial t}}+{\frac {4\pi }{c}}\mathbf {j} _{e}$
Note: For the equations in nondimensionalized form, remove the factors of c.

The Lorentz force becomes

$\mathbf {F} =q_{e}\left(\mathbf {E} +{\frac {\mathbf {v} }{c}}\times \mathbf {B} \right)+q_{m}\left(\mathbf {B} -{\frac {\mathbf {v} }{c}}\times \mathbf {E} \right)$

In SI units, magnetic charge conventionally has units of T·m² (although some authors use different conventions), See, for example: arXiv:physics, eqn (4), in which the unit of magnetic monopole differs by a factor of μ₀, compared to the version from Jackson 1999: Classical Electrodynamics (*) — used in this article, and Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law take the following form:

$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} =\rho _{e}/\epsilon _{0}$	$\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =\rho _{m}$
$-\nabla \times \mathbf {E} ={\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}+\mathbf {j} _{m}$	$\nabla \times \mathbf {B} =\mu _{0}\epsilon _{0}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {E} }{\partial t}}+\mu _{0}\mathbf {j} _{e}$
$\mathbf {F} =q_{e}\left(\mathbf {E} +\mathbf {v} \times \mathbf {B} \right)+(q_{m}/\mu _{0})\left(\mathbf {B} -\mathbf {v} \times (\mathbf {E} /c^{2})\right)$

If magnetic charges do not exist, or if they exist but where they are not present in a region, then the new variables are zero, and the extended equations reduce to the conventional equations of electromagnetism such as $\nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =0$. Classically, the question is "Why does the magnetic charge always seem to be zero?"

• (*) Jackson 1999. For Maxwell's equations, see section 6.11, equation 6.150,

page 273. For the Lorentz force law, see page 290, exercise 6.17(a)

Transposed by D.A. Borgdorff ↔ 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

BF model field theory

The BF model is a topological field theory, which when quantized, becomes a topological quantum field theory. BF stands for background field. B and F, as can be seen below, are also the variables appearing in the Lagrangian of the theory, which is helpful as a mnemonic device.

We have a 4-dimensional differentiable manifold M, a gauge group G, which has as "dynamical" fields a two-form B taking values in the adjoint representation of G, and a connection form A for G.

The action is given by

$S=\int _{M}K[\mathbf {B} \wedge \mathbf {F} ]$

where K is an invariant nondegenerate bilinear form over ${\mathfrak {g}}$ (if G is semisimple, the Killing form will do) and F is the curvature form

$\mathbf {F} \equiv d\mathbf {A} +\mathbf {A} \wedge \mathbf {A}$

This action is diffeomorphically invariant and gauge invariant. Its Euler-Lagrange equations are

$\mathbf {F} =0$ (no curvature)

and

$d_{\mathbf {A} }B=0$ (the covariant exterior derivative of B is zero).

In fact, it is always possible to gauge away any local degrees of freedom, which is why it is called a topological field theory.

However, if M is topologically nontrivial, A and B can have nontrivial solutions globally.

In- and external links

• Spin foam
• Background field method
• Quantum field theory

  

• http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qg-fall2000/qg2.2.html

Duplicated by: D.A. Borgdorff = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• See also advanced: http://www.eburon.nl/elementary_process_theory

De Broglie's parodox

Quantum Mechanics considers the duality wave-particle through the interpretation proposed by de Broglie. The diffraction has been detected for the elementary particles, as electrons, protons, neutrons, molecules. Considering these experiments, we show here that there is a grave incompatibility between this solution of Quantum Mechanics and the Michelson-Morley experiment, if the light is replaced by protons, and Michelson’s interferometer replaced by a crystal.

• MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT FOR PROTONS

When an electron crosses a crystal, it can suffer diffraction according to the Bragg’s relation, which is: nλ = 2.d. senφ .... [2.1]

Davisson, Germer and Thomson made experiments with φ = 65^o , d = 0,91Å , and electrons with kinetic energy 54eV.

Through the expression 2.1 we get: λ= 1,65 Å .... [2.2]

The wavelength of de Broglie, for the electrons with energy 54eV used at the Davisson-Germer-Thomson experiment, is:

λ = h/p = 6,6x10-34j-s/4,0x10-24kg-m/s = 1,65 Å .... [2.3]

Electrons with kinetic energy 54eV have approximately a speed 4.000km/s. As we see, the postulate of de Broglie gets the same result of the Bragg’s relation. According to the authors Robert Eisberg & Robert Resnick[1], the electron suffers diffraction into the crystal because “there is a constructive interference of waves spread by the periodic arrangement of the atoms in the planes of the crystal ”. So, this constructive interference is a consequence of: d=0,91Å within the crystal, and the electron’s speed 4.000km/s.

In the experiments of diffraction electrons are used with speed 4.000km/s. But instead of using electrons we can replace them by protons. As the proton has a mass 2.000 times greater than the electron, then de Broglie’s wavelength of a proton with speed 2km/s will be 1,65Å. Then let us imagine Michelson-Morley experiment, made with a proton with speed 32km/s.

We will consider the Sun as a reference at rest. And in order to simplify the explanation, let's consider that the Earth's translation velocity around the Sun is 30km/s. So the crystal in our laboratory has a speed of 30km/s with regard to the Sun. But the Bragg’s relation does not depend on the speed of the crystal, in order that through his relation we get the value λ=1,65Å.

Now let us submit the protons to the experiment, when they are emitted in two directions. Let us analyze the two different directions of the proton’s motion in the experiment.

Michelson-Morley experiment for protons:

1- First let us consider that the flux of protons is emitted with 32km/s in contrary direction of the Earth’s motion. The speed of the protons with regard to the Sun is 32km/s - 30km/s = 2km/s. So, by de Broglie’s relation we get a wavelength λ=1,65Å , and by the Bragg’s relation we also have λ=1,65Å. This means that the proton shall be submitted to the diffraction effect into the crystal, and we can detect the proton’s duality by the experiment.

2- Now consider the flux of protons emitted with 32km/s in the same direction of the Earth’s motion. The speed of the protons with regard to the Sun is 32km/s + 30km/s = 62km/s. Then, the proton has a de Broglie’s wavelength λ=1,65Å/31 = 0,055Å, while from the Bragg’s relation for the crystal λ=1,65Å. Therefore such proton cannot suffer diffraction into the crystal.

This is the result that we have to expect from the concepts of Quantum Mechanics. But suppose that we make this Michelson-Morley experiment for protons, and we get a result showing that the speed 30km/s of the Earth does not have influence on the proton’s diffraction, no matter the direction of the flux of protons with regard to the Earth’s motion. Clearly this experimental result does not fit to the concepts of Quantum Mechanics, as has been shown above. One can say that there is no paradox, because it is necessary to consider the velocity of the crystal with regard to the proton, i.e., actually it would be necessary to consider the relation λ= h/m(V-v), where V is the velocity of the proton, and v is the velocity of the crystal. With such argument, actually we are introducing the Doppler effect between the proton and the crystal. However such argument is valid only for pure waves, it is not valid for the de Broglie’s idea of duality. Let us show why.

Consider a proton with speed 30km/s. Its wavelength h/mv is λ= 0,11Å. And if we use a crystal with distance d= 0,06Å , from the Bragg’s relation we get λ= 0,11Å, and therefore in the laboratory we must detect the proton’s diffraction. This is the prediction according to de Broglie’s interpretation. But now consider that we make such experiment with the proton going in contrary direction of the Earth’s motion around the Sun. Therefore, with regard to the Sun, the velocity of the proton is Vp= 0. In such experiment, the proton is at rest, while the crystal has a velocity Vc=30km/s toward the direction of the proton. Unmistakably the proton is stopped with regard to the Sun, and this means that it does not have wave feature. The proton with Vp= 0 is 100% corpuscular, and therefore it cannot suffer diffraction into the crystal. So, the de Broglie’s interpretation is wrong.

Obviously we have a paradox. The duality, according to the interpretation of de Broglie, is not compatible with the Michelson-Morley experiment for protons. Let us call it Michelson-deBroglie Paradox. It shows that it is not correct the de Broglie's interpretation for the relation λ=h/p.

Instead of being a property of the matter, it's possible the duality wave-particle may be a property of the helical trajectory of elementary particles as the electrons. The helical trajectory is known as zitterbewegung, which appears in the Dirac's equation of the electron

From such new interpretation, the duality wave-particle is not a manifestation of the matter. Actually it's a property of the helical trajectory.

Signatures: 200.149.61.68 (talk) & 200.97.93.67 03:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For some sources about this, including some that resolve it, see here. It might be sensible to add something to the article, as long as it's well rooted in reliable sources. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Dicklyon, the books quoted by you speak about OTHER DE BROGLIE'S PARADOX, as we see in [23],

where it's written: "How can De' Broglie discover his famous relation between the particle's momentum and a wave length, a paradox stemming from the time dilatation effect of SR".

• Therefore the paradox quoted by you has not any relation to the de Broglie's paradox concerning the new version of Michelson's experiment, named Michelson-Morley experiment for protons.
• Actually there is not any solution proposed for this new de Broglie's paradox in any book, except in Quantum Ring Theory: [24]

Ccfr: D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

For more discussion on this topic: User talk:DonJStevens & his UP too. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC) by D.A. Borgdorff +>

Article on Vallée

Mr Borgdorff, there is now an article nl:René-Louis Vallée. If you are interested in contributing, feel free to put it on my talk page (disregard the message there), and I will put it in if it does not violate the principles of Wikipedia. Regards, Wammes Waggel (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I immediately noticed that stub written by incompetent and unqualified editors who don't know enough of De Broglie's paradoxes and Vallée's work related apparently. So I'm not amused, certainly not while this started being blocked for too long. I'll take this interwiki attacks on my integrity (also by you) very seriously and resentfully, and complained about "it" already. Further, into the page user talk: Woodwalker, I have debated this matter too, and mentioned to stay aloof of its present content. First put those references back, and the banishments and blocks allover the world you created on metawiki instantly down and out. You have to understand who frequently asked some physicist for helping her out and was the originator of my disappeared article "Material Waves" on the 20th of May. Yours \ D.A. Borgdorff - e.i.: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC) With the exception of the edit from user dr. Paul B.

Unfortunately you are going on to disrupt the importance of the Hon. prof.ing. R.-L. Vallée, as well as my contributions of messenger interrelated to most works of De Broglie. This is still indignified upheaval ... of which I stay aloof from. Truly Yrs: \ dAb / +> 86.83.155.44 (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because of a suddenly blocking up from action by Robotje - while defending me - I'll have to (re)place the (un)finished text hereunder in España.wiki:

On the contrary: ¡ Don't take that very important reference away without discussion first.! You are nó more worth than any other user ...nl:G:dAb via —86.83.155.44 (discusión) 10:08 4 jul 2008 (UTC) → Post scriptum: the lie that in France is no article about Vallée is proved by fr:Synergie in paragraph Physique synergétique. Always, atentamente D.A. Borgdorff: —86.83.155.44 (discusión) 10:35 4 jul 2008 (UTC) → PS: I also clearly stated that the work eruditely published from De Broglie's 'own' Masson & Cie on this topic of M° René-Louis Vallée - mi traslado incluido - had been "classified" by the Public French National State Atomic CEA ultimo 1974 for obvious reasons. Saludos Cordiales y Atte: D.A. Borgdorff —86.83.155.44 (discusión) 11:14 5 jul 2008 (UTC)

Hoping someone been able to copy/paste insert this into the proper Spanish "equivalent" talkpage overthere ... Thanks in advance for your service. Obliged sincerely yours: D.A. Borgdorff still from 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Star

		The Original Barnstar
		For trying to get quality reliable high-standard articles into several Wikipedia projects. DTBone (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because elsewhere blocked up, so only able to reply here, I am much surprised to receiving these awards on more than one wiki. Very pleased for your kind and friendly words, that put new heart into research and writing onwards.
I will keep imperishable memories that way and wish you greatly blessed days in return the coming weeks.
Obliged with stumbling, I am faithfully yours D.A. Borgdorff - e.i.s.t. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

re: Block of my Italian talkpage

You can push your POV elsewhere. Removing warnings and reverting edits from other administrators is considered vandalism on itwiki, that is not your talk page, it's a space that the italian community kindly allowed you to abuse for too long. --Brownout ^(msg) 11:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you don't read very well, because I didn't do anything at all you stated. Never, never "removed warnings or reverting admins edits" nor even pushing as you blamed and shamed my scientific integrity by POV. Though: regards: D.A. Borgdorff - i.e. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tram

Hello dAb, almost a week ago, around the time when Beetstra unblocked you, that admin wrote on my talk page:

"I would like to hear your side of this, and I may invite User:Eric Baas [sic] to this discussion as well. In all cases, I would like to invite all three of you to discuss the edits." [25]

The edits he was writing about were edits where you inserted self references in the articles List of town tramway systems and Tram while Eric Baas and me were removing those references. In the quote above Beetstra was inviting three users: Erik Baas, you and me to discuss those edits. As a result of that invitation I asked some questions on Talk:Tram. I hope you are able to answer those questions so we can work towards a consensus. Since Erik Baas was also specifically invited by Beetstra, I will also ask him to get involved in the discussion on that talk page. After that, we can continue on the talk page of the other article. - Robotje (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As you could see: I started discussion there energeticly. Regards as usual: D.A. Borgdorff = dAb +> 86.83.155.44 (talk) 20:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I did notice. But so far, you didn't answer any of my questions I wrote there although you did a lot of editing on that page after I placed my questions there. So please don't forget answer them. - Robotje (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion seems not obvious anymore, because here mr. Fram and in Holland and elsewhere mrs. Moira systematicly are being to destroy all of my references, probably owing to revenge. Thanks for your attention though: D.A. Borgdorff s.t. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the discussion on Talk:Tram is over then we can start the discussion about the other article as requested by Beetstra. To start it, I already put some questions on Talk:List of town tramway systems I would like you to answer. Let's hope it will help to reach some consensus. - Robotje (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DAB, again, I ask you not to assume anything of which ever other user on this, or on other Wikipedias (or at least not to write it on-wiki). Fram did state that there were places where the reference may be in its place. May you ask you to, in a way that for us is simple, understandable, and comprehensive way, to answer questions and to stay on the subject of the questions.

On another side, I'd like to make a suggestion which may give an opportunity to circumvent all these discussions. You probably have a copy of your own book, with all the references in there. The book itself is quite inaccessable, and hard to check. However, another way to improve this encyclopedia would be to use the information in your book, and expand articles, not citing your own book (including those which you have translated, refactored, or are involved with in any way), but the references that you have used to write the information in these books (that is, preferably the real source of the information). I assume that that would result in less offense regarding the (appropriately or inappropriately disputed and disputable) subjects of verifyability, reliability, self published sources, conflict of interest (whichever may or may not be applicable, and including other policies and guidelines that may be applicable on the wiki you are editing). However, I ask you, that if someone objects to an addition you made, that you will not revert any reversions of your edits, but try (in the same way as I asked above) to discuss it with them on talkpages. I do hope that you understand what consequences edit warring (even if you are right), and self-promotion etc. can have for editors on this (and other) wiki(s).

I have been assuming a lot of good faith on your side, and I must say that I find it difficult to communicate with you in some cases, but I hope that you will do your best to not fail that assumption of good faith (towards me, and towards other editors here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See my reactions on your talk page please. D.A. Borgdorff = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 02:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC) → My late teacher and friend: [26].

→ http://www.google.com/books?uid=14081564107042339222&hl=nl&rview=1

P.S. Could you please archive some old threads on this talkpage, the page becomes big. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, your page has been deleted as an invalid user subpage since you're not registered. I suggest you to create an account and to request its restoration into your user space (e.g. User:Example/Sketches of Spain). Regards, Christian.И 09:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Ccfr: dAb 86.83.155.44

ANI section

If you reopen an ANI section and add comments about editors, then please have the courtesy to notify these editors of it, as requested in the ANI guidelines. Talking about someone behind their back is not considered civil. Fram (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason for reopening were only edits into the Archive 464 - from mr. Erik Warmelink, whom I notified appropriately in due time. Thank you and regards D.A. Borgdorff PE = by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As has happened quite a few times, I understand nothing of your reply. You have discussed the edits of othere editors e.g. here n without notifying them of the discussion. Fram (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As has happened here too, neither do I understand your reply, because I but was illustrating the point that only mr. Warmelink made. D.A. Borgdorff \ dab 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It asn't clear (to me) why you reopened the ANI thread. I now understand that Warmelink edited the archive. I have posted on his talk page [27] cautioning him not do this, and have reverted his edits in the noticeboard archive. Fram (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

1 month block

Since you again changed a talk page comment by another user[28], despite clear requests not to do so[29], you have now been blocked for one month for disruptive editing. The length of the block is due to the fact that this wasn't the first problem. Fram (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.

A month for correcting a name, while the user said he was guessing? Did you also block Robotje for incessantly importing nl:Wikipedia issues, which surely is the greater offence? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 08:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

An offence similar to importing Wikisage issues, which isn't even related to Wikipedia? Anyway, this is a block for changing comments by someone else, for which he was warned repeatedly before, and where in this case he was asked not to do it again specifically by the user involved, and where I had asked both editors to stop the bickering and to focus on the article (which is the purpose of an article talk page anyway). If he then decides to change the same comment again (not helping anyone by doing so, the link worked and it could not be misunderstood), he gets blocked for disruption. As for the length of the block, that's because he has quite an impressive blocklog already. His earlier month long block for disruption was undone after a few days with the summary "Per my suggestions on talk, please reblock if editor decides to persist in his behaviour". Editor persists, so is reblocked. Fram (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• If the link had worked, I would not have repaired it (again) and therefore being blocked. After my repairing, suddenly Robotje changed this link in NL.WP on purpose as N (= new) per 3 sep 2008 06:21 (CEST) ... of course later, than it started to work for you. See: Esp. further on. - I never ever was attempting to disruption anyhow, on the contrary. D.A. Borgdorff = dAb 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please. That user imported Wikipedia issues to Wikisage, not the other way around.

I don't like the way your are handling this. This is not 'bickering', user is being stalked without end. You do nothing to stop that, but every tiny mistake by him, things that are accepted from other users (nobody is perfect!), results in a progressive block. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You brought the issue here. I don't care what anyone does at Wikisage, that is the business of the people over there. You started a section about a user with only one edit here (a non-controversial one at that) about actions on a non-Wikipedia (or even Wikimedia) related website.

As for the blocking: not "every tiny mistake results in a progressive block": first, he would have been inefblocked long ago if that was the case; second, it is not a progressive block, his previous block for disruptive editing was also for a month (even if it was lifted early); and third, I have repeatedly intervened when other people acted incorrectly, including in recent days (warning Warmelink, and asking Borgdorff and Robotje both to stop). Fram (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec, and what does Wikisage have to do with this, keep on subject please?) As I am the admin who previously blocked and unblocked, and I do keep an eye on this user, I will leave a comment here as well. I will not comment on the block or on the length of the block (Guido, what others have done does not reflect on this user and is not an argument for or against this block), but will, again, warn. As I said, I am looking at your edits, and I do see that you keep in the same region of thinking, therefor:

@ D.A. Borgdorff, editing here under this IP: do NOT change talkpage posts written by other people, AT ALL. You can suggest the correct link just as easy in a new post of your own. This is again resulting in 'edit warring' (again on something minor!), and you keep running in to that. It is simply predictable that you will run into it again and again. I have given you several warnings and blocks earlier, and given you strong advice on what things you have to stay away from (self promotion (or anything that even may seem self promoting), edit warring (and try not to perform edits which may give rise to such edit warring), egotism, adulting behaviour (I'd rather use some Dutch terms which spring to mind, and so avoiding the more plain-English ones: zelf-promotie, zelfverheerlijking, kruiperig gedrag, en hielenlikkerij), &c. &c.). Wikipedia is NOT the medium for such things. Cut it completely (not only towards me, also towards others)!! Perform normal edits, use references which do not involve you (even remotely, and I would even suggest to stay away from suggesting such references, or whining about it over and over if they get removed), &c. &c. Get over it, people simply don't have convidence in you anymore and indeed will follow you around and scrutinise every single edit you perform! And if I look at your edits, then a lot of them involve making sure that your books or your person gets named, linked or similar (e.g. when you add an interwiki link to a page here, that almost certainly means that you are named on the page on the wiki you link to). And for the sake of it, please try to uphold that everywhere (i.e. also on all other wikis. Although things are not portable to other wikis, often there are similar guidelines and policies (sometimes even stronger than here!)). I keep on saying these things to you (and on all other wikis other people say similar things to you), and still you go on. I am not going to give specific examples, but I would suggest you think carefully about the text you write, and the edit summary you give before you press the 'Save page' button ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The next remark was placed, inserted below the Dutch sentence, but removed out of context, opus citatum: - (Borgdorff - e.i.)

N.B.: dit is een uiterst ernstige, onterechte beschuldiging aan mijn adres die ik ten stelligste zeer, zéér ver van de hand wijs - en in alle opzichten. Nimmer heb ik me in mijn bijna 40 jarige werk-ervaring zelfs op enigerlei vergelijkbare wijze gedragen, integendeel: .. mijn naam en gedrag staan buiten kijf, en als één der weinigen op Tractiegebied is mij in Nederland een eigen archiefplaats toegewezen, die zelfs voormalige directieleden der HTM nimmer ten deel is gevallen! This strange approach looks like to attack my scientific integrity again. Insertion: dAb 86.83.155.44 (talk)

Sofar the insertion: D.A. Borgdorff MASc E.E. PE by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to this: Your only edits here are virtually all to insert your own reference (cf. one of the last posts by Fram, vide infra), and your own name (including indirectly making sure that things where you are mentioned are linked), that is what I mean with self-promotion, you seem to refuse, even when asked for that, to cite other work, or similar, you have hitherto not even commented on that. You find it necessery to to colour your name on every occasion differently, using all your different titles on a (seemingly) random choice (sigh, I know what I am going to get now), recolouring them, changing them, also this I mean with 'egotism'. And when you get blocked, you promiss a lot of things, with citing titles and using words like 'dear Sir', 'With compliments in resort', 'I'll have to remain faithfully yours'. Still you do these things again (and those things come close to adulting behaviour; especially when you simply do the same thing over and over, do I have to remind you that you were asked similar things on other wikis? OK, rules do not have to be the same here, but you were warned here as well for exactly the same things). The very reason you are blocked at this moment is because you fail to understand that you should refrain from editing inside others peoples comments, I have given you a fresh, clear warning about that, and what do you do, you edit inside that same post!!! (you could have put the post at the bottom, with a 'Re ".. <citation> ..": <your comments>', that would not have given this controversy.

The Dutch terms may indeed be (too) strong (the English 'translations' would have been similar), but I hope they function a bit as an eye opener, and I hope that that will change your behaviour here. Because if you proceed like this, you may easily run into an indefinite block (or as close as possible to that for an IP), which results in that you will not be able to improve this wikipedia with the knowledge you have. I am sorry, but using your own references is something that we do not like here (and is disliked on many wikis), but there are many other ways of improving this encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you mr. Beetstra, but you are (still) commenting on my behaviour instead of contents for articles. As I am educated early sixties the century before, I was informed to solely speak and write to colleagues with titles and Esq. to be involved as by introduction as well. In Dutch: netjes aanspreken met U, dus vousvoyeren s.v.p. en tutoyeren wordt maar tot het hiernamaals uitgesteld ... Ook in Duitsland werd men aangesproken met: Guten Tag, Sehr geehrten Herrn Doktor Ingenieur Beetstra. Al dat ge-je en ge-jou, gaf geen pas! - Sorry at not being able to express my ever willing intentions, even to learn at my age. So: no name left, but number 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, commenting on the references and data you add is commenting on the contents for articles that you have added. And I know, and I do not mind in a way that you nicely address people, but I did see an increase in that around block discussions, and you promise a lot at those moments that you simply do not follow up on. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC) PS: I don't like an NDE of heart-attack again.

For nearly 11 months was no such discussion at all, but peace, no war. This started from that "absurd hunting me" around the globe about qualified references, so I'm entitled to, because of expertise. Now, when those all were deleted, this other arrogantly behavioral talking went off, while I'm not reinserting that meanwhile suddenly requestioned refs. The last reply on Fram's talkpage was about (more) "sources", asked for my refs, where these are ( unique ) in relation to stated developments. It seems to me that none studied the depth of that related complicated equipment referred to, e.g. the circuitery replacing switchgear and introducing very advanced serie-resonant snubbered fast 'soft' turn-off dynamic characteristics only by Brown Boveri RCT's delivered as early as from 1978 to be "comparable" to Locomotives from Alsthom-SNCF with much more thyristors per circuit and barely recuperation. Top technology: that nobody reacted upon but only unimportant off-topics, not from Rail- or Tramway-colleagues, but all on battles prepared Dutch "admins" or "moderators". But I told this for nearly two months too, keeping obligated as usual: D.A. Borgdorff s.s.t.t 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC) PS: I sure don't like an heart-NDE again.

Not all wiki's have these same policies, Dirk (in fact, nor has Wikipedia, in written policies, but it has in unwritten policies that new users cannot possibly know.) This is a user who is knowledgeable in what he has published about. To tell him not to use that, means two things: first, that he cannot contribute to the project, and second, that valuable information will never reach the project because nobody else is around with the same knowledge. If you think that is a good thing: fine, by all means, impose such rules, but at some point you too will see that the project has come to a full stop, or that the encyclopedia is in fact deteriorating. Correcting the spelling of a name in someone's talk does not harm the project, nor does referencing your own publications. There is also no regulation that says that a user must be blocked if he ignores any warning by an admin. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No Guido. Most things are here written down in guidelines and policies, and we certainly do not expect new users to know them, and they are very allowed to make mistakes or be bold. But D.A. Borgdorff seems to run into the same conflicts over and over, he is repeatedly asked not to do it, and therefor I am asking him to just not do such things. And I don't see the problem of asking him to stay away from these conflicts (as continuing like this will in the end result in an 'indef block' (or as close to that as can be done with an IP, and this IP is static).

You say 'This is a user who is knowledgeable in what he has published about'. That is fine, and he can use that knowledge here. But I am asking him to not refer that exclusively to his own work, to stay away from self promotion (and the other things which are in a way self promoting as well; the egotism e.g.). I can write perfectly well about carbenes without having to cite my own work, I don't have to suggest my own work on talkpages. Some users (and if I scrutinise D.A. Borgdorff's edits he looks close to one of those) perform only edits if that can, in some way or another, include their name, or their book. I have suggested earlier, that in his book he must have used other references which do not involve his own name, or must have knowledge about such references. I suggested that he could use those references to make things he adds verifyable, but I don't see such edits. He can (and has) suggested his own work on talkpages, other, uninvolved editors, are not convinced it adds to the page, and that is that, no need to keep pushing.

This all suggests that this editor only edits if he can include his own name (directly or indirectly), and refuses (?) to do anything else. And I am asking him to stop that, completely. It is not that he did not have a chance! A conflict of interest does not have to be a problem, if an editor is performing hundreds of edits to hundreds of pages, and then includes on one of them a reference to an own work (because it is a very good work on that page), then it is not a problem (if those other edits don't all focus towards the self-reference, that is), but if the large majority (if not all) edits focus to self references, and the user is the only user who adds that reference, then yes, that is a problem. I indef block spammers who only add their own links for promotional means (and/or blacklist their links), and I am asking DAB to stop editing in a way so he can include his own work, (quite a soft approach, I would say, and if you see my blocks and unblocks above, I have assumed a lot of good faith on this user). A lot of rules are here are written down in policies and guidelines, and editors are asked to follow them (if they don't know them they are pointed there, as has been done with D.A. Borgdorff over and over), and we are getting to the limit here. If your knowledge exclusively pertains your own work (and you can't tell that the colour of the trams in (somewhere) changed in 19## from white with black spots to black with white spots by decree of the mayor of the town, and reference that with a newspaper item in 'the (somewhere) courant, but you have to refer to your own book for that) and not a little bit outside of that .. hmmm. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dirk, let me say first that I appreciate the good faith that you have shown. I see that all too rarely. That said, you are nonetheless caught up in a way of thinking that is not productive. It does not help the project in any way to demand that a user works on articles outside his expertise to earn the right to add a reference to his own work. Let other people, who are experts in these other fields, write those articles (and reference to their own work if they have published). Then they don't need to come to D.A. Borgdorff's area and stop him from adding his expertise simply by being with more, which is unfortunately how Wikipedia works. If a new user has some trouble with editing in a neutral fashion, all you need to do is teach him. IMHO, he has already learned a lot since he started, despite all the animosity, but of course there is lots of room for improvement for all of us. By the way, if you take a look at his literature list, you will see that there is plenty of work by other authors that he seeks to add, if only given the chance. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"...there is plenty of work by other authors that he seeks to add, if only given the chance.". Where, before the current block, has this chance been denied to him? Has anyone ever stopped him adding such information and references? Has any such edit been reverted? Fram (talk) 11:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Though the post below says enough .. Guido, he has had all the chance to use other references, yet it seems that the only reason for him to edit here is to add references to his own work .. and only that. We all edit our own specialities, but that does not mean that we have to add exclusively our own references. Our conflict of interest guideline is written for a reason, and it is written by a large number of editors here, as are the policies 'what wikipedia is not' and neutral point of view (and the others). And there is no right to add your own work, there never is .. I said that it does not have to be a problem, but if it is exclusively your own work that you insist on adding .. then I do question the intentions, especially with the air of egotism around it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, he never had the chance. He never got there because his first edits kept being reverted, he kept being attacked, and got blocked numerous times. That guideline may have been written for a good reason, but you (plural, I'm not blaming you personally) don't follow your own guideline. You impose a far stricter regime instead, one that shows disrespect and hurts project and participants alike. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 13:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. His first mainspace edit was almost exactly a year ago, and was adding a ref to his book without making any additional change[30]. His thrid edit was to add the same book to another article.[31] His fifth edit was adding a sentence to justify the inclusion of his book[32] in the first article. His seveneth edit is to introduce his book in a third article.[33]. All his next edits are very minor. The first edit which is not minor or involves his own book is the removal of a reference[34]. A few edits later: a fourth addition of hisown book[35]. Moving on, in his tenth day here, he adds his fifth reference to his book[36], still without any references to any other source, or any other information added anywhere. This[37] is probably the first time he adds any info not related to his book (good!), unsourced though. The next day, he adds his book again to another article.[38]. Editing then becomes sporadic, with the first edit outside the circle of tram aricles here, where he includes someone (family, judging by the name) to a list[39]. His next sourced and not minor addition comes in February, when he adds his translation of a book[40]. This comes after his first block. He then doesn't edit any tam articles until June, when he reintroduces a self-reference[41]. Soon after that, the current problems started.

Now, he was active from September 2007 and was only blocked for a week in February 2008, until his series of blocks starting in July 2008. What exactly is the reason that he hasn't added any ref at all in those first 10 months, except to his own works? Fram (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be: during all this time, nobody took the trouble to communicate with him, in a respectful manner and assuming good faith. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Guido ... You at least don't consider my work as insignificant - it has to be said notwithstanding my serious heart problems. With kind regards: D.A.Borgdorff e.i. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Guido, I suggested him more than 2 weeks ago (diff) to use other references, that seems more than enough time to consider to do that, but after being warned over and over, D.A. Borgdorff keeps holding the same edit pattern. Maybe it just does not come through. And I do think that I did assume good faith on D.A. Borgdorff, and that I did try to convey to him what the guidelines and policies said, and did suggest other routes and ways.

D.A. Borgdorff: I am not saying that your work is insignificant, but per our conflict of interest guideline, it is better that you don't do that type of edits yourself, but let uninvolved editors add the work if they think it is appropriate there. The material is challenged over and over (everywhere), and then it just needs discussion on talkpages. The conflict of interest guideline is there for a reason, and it is a thin line, but people who only add their own work can have different reasons (which we are not able to know, we can only take the editors word for it!), and if we 'allow' you to perform only edits which seem self-promotional, then we also have to allow real spam as well. The guideline suggest not to do it yourself, but discuss and let uninvolved editors do the additions (and you have been doing that lately!). In the mean time you can of course add information and edit pages, and add references to work which does not relate to you. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 02:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much as well, Dirk ... You at least don't consider my work as insignificant: it has to be said notwithstanding serious heart problems. I really thought there were much more due edits - than the dozen which are solely written of by Fram as examples of wrong contributions. - Kind regards too: D.A. Borgdorff e.i. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 09:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

D.A. Borgdorff, they were 'wrong' (better, 'strongly discouraged', and I am sure that is what Fram means) in a way that it would have been better if you would not have added them yourself, or would not have focussed solely on doing that type of edits (and that is what the conflict of interest guideline tries to cover!). As for the content of the book, I am probably not a very good judge of that (what I know about trams boils down to that they do 'ping ping', have rails in the road in a city, that you have to be careful with them as they have some strange preference rules about them, and that they are in Den Haag and in Amsterdam (and maybe in a couple more cities). To be able to discuss the reference better I suggest finding like souls here on wikipedia, as per my earlier suggestion to contact an appropriate wikiproject. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I did e.g. Slambo and Jack Gordon, but they keep aside as I meanwhile was hit, whom people don't like to be involved with as neither do I. See also user talk:Fram#Tramway articles. Estimable Sir, I remain obligated: D.A. Borgdorff (ec) 86.83.155.44 (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC) P.S.: nearly all people of the wikiproject are hobbyists, no professionals.

I didn't describe them as "wrong" (at least not on this page, and I don't think I did anywhere else). I didn't say "dozen" either. I went through your edits here, to see if there was any evidence that you were indeed interested in adding content that could be sourced to other sources than your own books or translations. It turned out that there were very few such edits, and none of them were sourced. Apart from being blocked, which was until this block only a relatively short period in your total stay here, you have never been stopped or even discouraged in adding content from other reliable sources. I have no idea why you and Guido raised this issue, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this block. Fram (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Re "nearly all people of the wikiproject are hobbyists, no professionals." <- That does not mean that they do not know anything! They are still people that you can discuss with (and 'nearly' suggests that there are professionals as well there!). Referencing it all to your book only does not make it by definition notable, there must be other references as well, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge that, or to want to use those, despite several suggestions to do so. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Dirk, .. I am almost but replying to questioning for a long time, not editing into articles a single reference about my book since my protests against deleting by Fram of all the "refs" that imho harmed nobody. My block apparently owing to the recorrection I made for the wrong (linked) spelling of KIvI, not "KIVI": the latest only used into the logo: KIVI/NIRIA since ultimo 2004. That is where I am blocked up for: nóthing else, than correcting continuously errors by Robotje, who is (by order from Oscar) following annoyingly my international edits since ult. November last year. For the moment, a proof is to be found in links at the bottom of this very page. Yours: dAb 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC) See further the Dutch lemma: nl:KIVI NIRIA and nl:Beta Federatie.

Retired

Unfortunately - I am being unabled to further editing here because of a correction to the accurate name of RIEN: the Royal Institute of Engineers in the Netherlands but mainly owing to enduring cardiac arrest suffering from this absurd blocking up.

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Ingenieur D.A. Borgdorff: Electrodynamical Engineer Power Electronics Emeritus: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Esp. [42] vs. [43] & [44]