7
\$\begingroup\$

In this Q/A, the questioner asked for guidance modelling the self capacitance of a solenoid.

Andy Aka had already answered with a good method for measuring it. I supported this answer, and said so. I then went on to describe how to approximately model the self capacitance of a multi-layer solenoid.

In his answer, he also gave an estimate for the self capacitance of 3 pF, a value that to me, given the solenoid dimensions, sounded entirely infeasible. I said I did not support this estimate. I described the estimate as a PIDOOMA. It was the estimate I was describing, not the person.

I support Andy's method for measuring the capacitance by using the self resonance of the coil, but not his PIDOOMA of 3 pF.

A moderator removed the PIDOOMA phrase, fair enough, but also totally changed the meaning of what I had written. As now edited, it suggests that I support the estimated 3 pF value.

I support Andy's method for measuring the capacitance by using the self resonance of the coil, a capacitance of 3 pF.

As the post is now locked, I can't alter this. I would like a moderator to edit the post so it reverts to my original meaning

I support Andy's method for measuring the capacitance by using the self resonance of the coil, but not his capacitance estimate of 3 pF.

If it's completely forbidden to express disagreement with part of somebody else's answer, then removing the reference to 3 pF would be acceptable, as in

I support Andy's method for measuring the capacitance by using the self resonance of the coil.

Or even to remove that paragraph entirely.

It's the end of my day here in the UK, so I won't be able to engage with any discussion of this for the next few hours.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ PIDOOMA? Means? \$\endgroup\$
    – Passerby
    Jun 25 at 0:02
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @Passerby Pulled It Directly Out Of My Abehind. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mast
    Jun 25 at 16:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ As I explained in my modified answer, I did have a method and I didn't pull it directly out of my atrociousness. \$\endgroup\$
    – Andy aka
    Jun 26 at 9:07

2 Answers 2

2
\$\begingroup\$

This is what happened. There was a flag raised on the post due to the content, I edited the post and handled the flag. The bot deleted the post, and I felt that was a bit unfair so I undeleted the post but was not aware of the lock that the bot put on the post from the flag (which I was unaware of). Sam fixed the post so sorry about the confusion.

It's also noteworthy that every user has signed on to the CoC to use the site. The moderators are here to make sure the CoC is followed. If you have any complaints please contact the community moderators with the link at the bottom of the page.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ There has been a flag raised on the content of this question (above) for days now. It's the same objection as what you dealt with on the original question. Why has nothing been done about my objections to the rudeness on this question (above) yet? \$\endgroup\$
    – Andy aka
    Jul 3 at 10:56
1
\$\begingroup\$

That looks to have been an inadvertent / unintentional change of meaning in that edit, which I believe was only intended to remove the problematic word.

I agree with your suggested wording and I have made that change. Sorry for the trouble!

Update: After I applied the first change you requested, I see you have now updated your request, so I have now applied that request and removed the paragraph completely.

Reviewing the history, any mention of 3 pF should be removed from your answer (which I've done) since the other answer which you refer to, has been updated to remove the 3 pF figure there.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .