User talk:KlappCK

---+Problem Statement:

The purpose of this page is to discuss a hypothetical scenario where one wishes to find the average spontaneous and stimulated monochromatic emission,

$\backslash Phi$ at any point on the curved surface of a unit-half-spherical object (a sphere cut in half) illuminated by a monochromatic columnated light source (such as a laser or some other emissive object infinitely far away from the unit-half-sphere) when the total surface emission function is

$\backslash phi\; \backslash left(\; c,\; v,\; \backslash hat\{s\},\; \backslash hat\{n\}\; (x,y)\; \backslash right)\; \backslash equiv\; c+v\; \backslash hat\{s\}\; \backslash cdot\; \backslash hat\{n\}(x,y)$, where

$c$

is the (constant) spontaneous surface emission,

$v$

is the (relative) stimulated surface emission,

$\backslash hat\{s\}\; \backslash equiv\; s\_x\; \backslash hat\{x\}\; +\; s\_y\; \backslash hat\{y\}\; +\; \backslash sqrt\{1-s\_x^2+s\_y^2\}\; \backslash hat\{z\}$

is the unit vector pointing in the direction of the monochromatic columnated light source (assumed to be on the curved side of the surface), and

$\backslash hat\{n\}(x,y)\; \backslash equiv\; x\; \backslash hat\{x\}\; +\; y\; \backslash hat\{y\}\; +\; \backslash sqrt\{1-x^2-y^2\}\; \backslash hat\{z\}$

is the parameterized surface normal on the curved side of the unit-half-sphere, so that

$\backslash Phi\; \backslash equiv\; \backslash overline\{\backslash phi\; \backslash left(\; c,\; v,\; \backslash hat\{s\},\; \backslash hat\{n\}\; (x,y)\; \backslash right)\}\; \backslash equiv\; \backslash tfrac\{1\}\{2\backslash pi\}\; \backslash int\backslash limits\_\{x=-1\}^\{x=1\}\; \backslash int\backslash limits\_\{y=-\backslash sqrt\{1-x^2\}\}^\{y=\backslash sqrt\{1-x^2\}\}\; \backslash tfrac\{c+v\; \backslash hat\{s\}\; \backslash cdot\; \backslash hat\{n\}(x,y)\}\{\backslash sqrt\{1-x^2-y^2\}\}\; \backslash text\{d\}x\; \backslash text\{d\}y\; =\; c\; +\; \backslash tfrac\{vs\_z\}\{2\}$

for

$s\_z\; \backslash ge\; 0$

.

Derivation:

:

\Phi \equiv \tfrac{1}{2\pi} \int\limits_{x=-1}^{x=1} \int\limits_{y=-\sqrt{1-x^2}}^{y=\sqrt{1-x^2}} \tfrac{c+v \hat{s} \cdot \hat{n}(x,y)}{\sqrt{1-x^2-y^2}} \text{d}x \text{d}y = \tfrac{1}{2\pi} \int\limits_{x=-1}^{x=1} \int\limits_{y=-\sqrt{1-x^2}}^{y=\sqrt{1-x^2}} \tfrac{c+v \left(s_xx+s_yy+\sqrt{1-s_x^2+s_y^2} \sqrt{1-x^2-y^2}\right)}

{\sqrt{1-x^2-y^2}} \text{d}x \text{d}y

= c + \tfrac{v}{2\pi} \int\limits_{x=-1}^{x=1} \int\limits_{y=-\sqrt{1-x^2}}^{y=\sqrt{1-x^2}} \tfrac{s_xx+s_yy+\sqrt{1-s_x^2+s_y^2} \sqrt{1-x^2-y^2}}

{\sqrt{1-x^2-y^2}} \text{d}x \text{d}y

= c + \tfrac{v \sqrt{1-s_x^2+s_y^2}}{2} + \tfrac{v}{2\pi} \int\limits_{x=-1}^{x=1} \int\limits_{y=-\sqrt{1-x^2}}^{y=\sqrt{1-x^2}} \tfrac{s_xx+s_yy}

{\sqrt{1-x^2-y^2}} \text{d}x \text{d}y

= c + \tfrac{v \sqrt{1-s_x^2+s_y^2}}{2} = c + \tfrac{v s_z}{2}

No problem - and many thanks for expanding it. Lugnuts (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

:Hehe, glad you liked! Pretty much everything on here isn't completed, so there's no need for the tag. Lugnuts (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Haven't absorbed the debate enough to have an opinion. I'm an inclusionist, and I believe the Family Guy article and all its related articles have been taken over by deletionists. However, I can't jump in because it would simply by a biased opinion. I've pretty much given up on these articles and now just spend my Family Guy time at the Family Guy wiki. Thanks for the consideration though. Geeky Randy (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

:But I don't have an opinion. It wouldn't be fair of me to give my input... just yet. One part of me thinks that since it has been established, maybe it could be put in the article; on the other hand, it's already established that he's a paraplegic so going into that kind of detail is redundant since his incontinence is kind of a given. I haven't decided which side I lean towards, and given that Family Guy Wiki is a much better database for the show than wikipedia is, quite frankly I don't care much about the discussion. Lastly, you should be careful not to WP:CANVAS, it could lead to a lot of trouble and will certainly be your downfall in your current debate. Geeky Randy (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

::"As our own article on paraplegia indicates, paraplegia does not necessarily imply incontinence..." This is your overriding factor in the debate. I never even bothered to consider this. Give me a day or so and I'll provide my input. Well done. Geeky Randy (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Image:Information.svg Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to :Nicole Polizzi. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

:I have responed to your comment on your talk page.KlappCK (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

:See the talk page. This appears well sourced to me, given the nature of the information. FOX news doesn't typically run articles about urinary incontinence, mostly (in my opinion) because it is a taboo subject and not exactly a ratings booster. Consider the prominence of the cited sources given the subject matter and then consider the rulesKlappCK (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

::Replied on talk page. - DVdm (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

::Struck comment. Do feel free to remove section. Owe you an apology. - DVdm (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding M203 Buckshot round...

You must be a mathematician…and as a mathematician you like precision. Unfortunately, a Buckshot round is anything but.

1) The M203 has a large cone of fire, that expands very quickly. While it would be nice to hit the target with every pellet. The Army knows that most of the pellets will miss the target anyway. They just want the soldier to hit the target with some of the pellets.

2) The sight radius of the M16 is about 5 inches above the center line of the M203’s bore. This causes a significant parallax problem.

3) When using the M16 sights to fire an M203 Buckshot round, the shooter has is a natural tendency to look down over the sights. This causes the M203’s bore to point up. At 10 feet this is not a problem. But, at 100 feet it becomes a major issue. As a result, the shooter can actually fire over the targets head.

4) When shooting at more distance targets, if the shooter aims low or at the foot of the target, it tends to correct these issues.

5) If any pellets hit the ground before striking the target, they may bounce into the target anyway. While any pellets that fly over the targets head have no possibility (or second chance) to hit the target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

:This explanation is elucidating. Perhaps it should be included somewhere on the main page of M203 Grenade Launcher.KlappCK (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Mike Searson...has a habit of violating civility rules, insulting other users, using profanity and basically treating Wikipedia as his own personal web-site. If you read his contribution page you will see what I mean. Unfortunately, I do not have the enough Wiki knowledge to challenge him in any meaningful way. I believe that you do. At the very least you know how to send this to the next level. Please, look in to this and tell me what you think. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Absolute value, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Function (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I don't completely agree, but I don't feel strongly about it.... --Macrakis (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

:Thanks for your note. --Macrakis (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi KlappCK. I've replied to your message on my talk page here. Paul August ☎ 20:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Ashley Treatment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Incontinence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I was also wondering about the whisks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I request that you review the happenings on the Comparison of the AK-47 and M16. There is a user who is suppressing manufacture technical specifications simply because he disagrees with them. He seems unwilling or unable to produce hard evidence that they are wrong. There is also more info on the “talk page”. I’m afraid that I have done all that I can do without being block. Thank you for your attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.156.40 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

How does someone file a complaint against an editor who claims he does not have to prove anything...see talk page Comparison of the AK-47 and M16.--71.22.156.40 (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to keep coming to you but G PViB has now posted the following comment "Do I need to call into question your mental adequacy to be a Wikipedia editor?" I believe qualifies as a civility violation. And, still refuses to provide any reference to support his positions.--71.22.156.40 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a broken equation, just when it was getting to the interesting bit.

Thanks Thepigdog (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

:Works for me.KlappCK (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

{{Ivmbox|Hello, KlappCK. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

{{Ivmbox|Hello, KlappCK. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}