| Revision as of 15:34, 9 May 2013 editTagremover (talk | contribs)4,797 edits →Your Faults: better← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:38, 9 May 2013 edit undoGuy Macon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers59,291 edits Corrected improper use of section headers per WP:TPOC. Section headers must be neutral, descriptive, and are not to be used for editorializing or soapboxing.Next edit → | ||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
| Given the above, I am going to ask you to voluntarily undo any edits that you have made that are based upon your ] concerning what a 1-bit architecture is. --] (]) 23:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC) | Given the above, I am going to ask you to voluntarily undo any edits that you have made that are based upon your ] concerning what a 1-bit architecture is. --] (]) 23:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| '''Reply''' | |||
| @]: First, your tone is not really friendly, and that you are wrong, doesn't make it better. I programmed the 8051 for several projects since end of 1980s, so i know what i am talking about. And, in contrary to you (although i do respect self-trained engineers/scientists, i know some who are better than masters or professors), i am an highly educated engineer and scientist and worked several years in a microelectronic company (not Intel) in research and design of microcontrollers. | @]: First, your tone is not really friendly, and that you are wrong, doesn't make it better. I programmed the 8051 for several projects since end of 1980s, so i know what i am talking about. And, in contrary to you (although i do respect self-trained engineers/scientists, i know some who are better than masters or professors), i am an highly educated engineer and scientist and worked several years in a microelectronic company (not Intel) in research and design of microcontrollers. | ||
| Line 172: | Line 172: | ||
| Because everything is already listed or linked in the article ], especially in the section ] and the here most important ref: , i repeat the facts clearly marked. | Because everything is already listed or linked in the article ], especially in the section ] and the here most important ref: , i repeat the facts clearly marked. | ||
| '''Facts''' | |||
| #The Boolean processor is existing: See article refs and: | #The Boolean processor is existing: See article refs and: | ||
| Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
| :::'''Result:''' external/internal Data-bus width is '''no proof''' at all for determining processor width. | :::'''Result:''' external/internal Data-bus width is '''no proof''' at all for determining processor width. | ||
| '''Disputed''' | |||
| a) There is some confusion about the data-bus width, with some WRONGLY state to be 8-bit wide: See its an '''ADDITIONAL''' 1-bit processor using its bit-line (if you like: "bus") and reuses some hardware, which is EXCELLENT (carry-bit = accu spares sometimes a move), but outside the 1-bit architecture it uses the 8-bit bus. | a) There is some confusion about the data-bus width, with some WRONGLY state to be 8-bit wide: See its an '''ADDITIONAL''' 1-bit processor using its bit-line (if you like: "bus") and reuses some hardware, which is EXCELLENT (carry-bit = accu spares sometimes a move), but outside the 1-bit architecture it uses the 8-bit bus. | ||
| Line 196: | Line 196: | ||
| e) Address bus width is notable, but clearly '''not''' the the most important width: otherwise the '''8051 would be a 16-bit.''' | e) Address bus width is notable, but clearly '''not''' the the most important width: otherwise the '''8051 would be a 16-bit.''' | ||
| '''Results + Discussion''' | |||
| I hope to pointed clearly the facts. Otherwise it is all in WIkipedia listed and linked. | I hope to pointed clearly the facts. Otherwise it is all in WIkipedia listed and linked. | ||
| Line 220: | Line 220: | ||
| * The 8051's "Boolean processor" (as named on Intel's datasheet) has an 8 bit data bus. It not only offers bit operations, it offers those bit operations ''across any chosen bit of the 8 bit register''. This is a "Boolean processor", but it's not a "1-bit processor" ] (]) 15:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | * The 8051's "Boolean processor" (as named on Intel's datasheet) has an 8 bit data bus. It not only offers bit operations, it offers those bit operations ''across any chosen bit of the 8 bit register''. This is a "Boolean processor", but it's not a "1-bit processor" ] (]) 15:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :*Why? See ]. ] (]) 15:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:38, 9 May 2013
 | Electronics Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 Archives |
Drawing circuits
Hi. I noticed the mention at WP:ELEC#Drawing circuits of vector graphics and Acorn Computers. Draw on its own wouldn't satisfy the criteria, which is presumably why it's not listed at WP:WikiProject Electronics/Programs. But now there is cheap ARM hardware available (especially the imminent Raspberry Pi) perhaps some programmers around here with (with plenty of free time) might fancy writing something suitable to interface with Draw! Just a thought! -- Trevj (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Help for correction
- Copied from Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Help for correction
I wrote a detailed article about “Dielectric absorption”, please see under User:Elcap/Dielectric absorption This article was translated from German, but I am not an expert of the English language. If someone please can help and correct my mistakes I would be very glad. --Elcap (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
- I will take a look at this. SpinningSpark 17:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Audio electronics redirect
I just noticed that audio electronics has been redirected to audio engineering since 2008. This is highly inappropriate, but understandable for anyone not aware of what audio engineers actually do, so I have reverted it to its pre-redirect state.
That is a long time to go undetected for such a key article. Could a few more people put it on their watchlists? Or even improve it - it is in a very poor state. SpinningSpark 16:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to volunteer to improve the audio electronics article. I'm pretty much a noob with the whole "editing Misplaced Pages" thing, but I spend a lot of time on here, and I actually have an assignment for a college course that requires me to make needed improvements to an article. I wouldn't consider myself and "expert", but I think I am fairly knowledgeable on the subject, as it is closely related to my field of study (electrical engineering) and hobbies I pursue as well. I already have a better definition worked out and was planning on adding some more detail to the subject as a whole. I just wanted to see if that was alright with people involved in the electronics Wikiproject if I took a shot at this. Also, I'm not entirely sure if I am posting this in the right place, so I will also put this in the talk page of the actual article as well. Cp99-NJITWILL (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- You don't need anyone's permission, just get stuck in. Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Other editors can change things they don't like. When you have it in a decent state, you can ask someone else to review it. If you can expand it five times in less than five days from your first edit to the article then you can submit it to DYK and get it mentioned on the front page. You can also submit it to WP:GAN and get it recognised as a Good Article. SpinningSpark 22:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, ok. I'll give it a shot then. --Cp99-NJITWILL (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
New article and category - Electronics industry
See Electronics industry and Category:Electronics industry. Could do with some work. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Film capacitor, need of help
Hi, in the English Misplaced Pages I had missed an article about “Film capacitors”. This very important electronic components is it worth to describe, see User:Elcap/Film capacitor. Because I was the main author for the German article I tried it with a translation from the German Misplaced Pages article (]). During translation I found a lot of new links and new informations so that the new written English version is not a one by one translation. But; the translator, Elcap, a little bit older expert of capacitors is not an expert of the English language, so I am asking for help in grammar, wordings and so on. Editors may wish to consult the parallel German article to clear up any remaining points of confusion, or to import more-recent improvements from there. If anyone can help i would be very glad. --Elcap (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Electrical Engineering
FYI, there's a new wikiproject proposal, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Electrical Engineering
70.24.248.211 (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Inverter versus NOT gate?
It looks like the article Inverter (logic gate) might be moved to NOT gate by some people who were pissed off about moving Inverter (electrical) to Power inverter instead of making it a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If you care one way or the other, comment at Talk:Inverter (logic gate)#Requested move. Dicklyon (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Positive feedback
I'm going to add the project template to Positive feedback. The discusstion there could benefit from more people who understand this stuff. Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Comparison of electronic memory types
We ought to have a comparison of electronic memory types article. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Common-mode-choke.png
file:Common-mode-choke.png is in cleanup categories for missing source and missing author information. I don't suppose someone knows, would they? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Only the uploader can answer that - have you asked them? Anyway, it is easily replaceable, even if it has to be redrawn from scratch. I made a similar diagram (File:Phantom flux.svg) for phantom circuit. Will that do, what do you need it for? SpinningSpark 17:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- The uploader hasn't edited since May, so I didn't ask yet, there's already a query on his talk page. I figured a quicker response might come from the project. As for what it might be used for, it's currently illustrating Choke (electronics) -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
AZUSA radar schematics
File:AZUSA-transponder.png and File:AZUSA-MarkII.png have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Frances Hugle
There is a discussion and request for input regarding retaining or merging the above article at WP:PM. Input from this project is appreciated on the comment page. -- :- ) Don 21:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Flowing flow of charge
Hi. In the article Transistor the text talks about current as a thing that flows. (For example in the third sentence: "...changes the current flowing through another pair of terminals"). But this is incorrect off course. Electric current is moving/flowing charge. So the current itself can't really flow. I know this mistake is really common(It is included in books in electronics and physics), so I'm in doubt whether you people(the ones involved in maintaining and creating articles about electronics) would thing it's OK for me to "fix" these mistakes. For example, the quoted sentence would become "...changes the current through another pair of terminals". I can understand if people think it's better to just leave it as it is, to prevent confusion and/or inconsistency. -- defusix (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2012 (GMT+1)
Microhip and IC Category merge proposal at Commons
Hi there,
Apologies if this is slightly offtopic at Misplaced Pages, but I'd be grateful if some of you could contribute your thoughts to the proposed merge of the "Microchips" and "Integrated circuits" categories on the discussion at Wikimedia Commons]. Thank you. Ubcule (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Request for comments: Establish standards for version history tables in software articles
I'd like to introduce the Template:Version template to Misplaced Pages with the goal to establish one standard for version history tables (or lists). It simplifies creation of release histories, standardizes release stages and makes the content more accessible.
Please comment on the template talk page (there already is some discussion). Thanks for your participation --Jesus Presley (talk) 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Crystal oscillator
There's a page move proposal on Talk:Crystal oscillator that could benefit from some advice. The terms used in electronics for a piezoelectric resonator, "crystal" or "quartz crystal", have other meanings in general usage, so the Crystal oscillator page has become a "quartz crystal" page. However the term "crystal oscillator" refers to the circuit, not the resonator crystal itself. Should content on quartz and other electronic crystals be move to a new Piezoelectric resonator page? Anyone that wants to drop by and express an opinion is welcome. --Chetvorno 02:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Category:Electronics terminology
Category:Electronics terminology has been nominated for deletion by merger into Category:Electronics -- 70.24.246.233 (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Amplifier organization
Is being discussed at Talk:Amplifier#Amplifier_topic_organization. -—Kvng 14:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is another proposal in there. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Integrated circuit inventor
A discussion is underway at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Patents as source for invention claims about whether patents are suitable reliable sources to support claims that a particular person invented the process used to fabricate integrated circuits. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Development of Electric double-layer capacitor to Supercapacitor
After more than half a year composing for a new edition of the article Electric double-layer capacitor I am now close for inserting my draft into the Wiki, please see User:Elcap/Supercapacitor. But I have a problem. Writing the new text for the article I found out, that the existing article (without the introduction) is an accumulation of single arguments without reasonable context. (The introduction I insert some moth ago). And I found out, that a real double-layer capacitor doesn’t exist.
Electric double-layer capacitors (EDLCs), invented 1957, have seen a dramatic change in understanding of their capacitive charge storage from a pure physical function between Helmholtz double-layers to an additional pseudocapacitive chemical charge storage with redox reactions, electrosorption and intercalation processes. This change of understanding has lead to a split of the electrochemical capacitors into three families:
- Double-layer capacitors – with carbon electrodes or derivates with much higher static double-layer capacitance than the faradaic pseudocapacitance
- Pseudocapacitors – with electrodes out of metal oxides or conducting polymers with a high amount of faradaic pseudocapacitance
- Hybrid capacitors – capacitors with special electrodes that exhibit both significant double-layer capacitance and pseudocapacitance, such as lithium-ion capacitors
But in no case double-layer and pseudocapacitance exist alone, even the older double-layer capacitors do have a little amount of pseudocapacitance. And the pseudocapacitors and hybrid capacitors do have a lot of double-layer capacitance. So it is nearly impossible to write three single articles to describe the new developments. This leads to the question how to name this very special capacitors.
Generally in science publications all the different developments of the last years are united under the term “electrochemical capacitors”. But if a development gets a discrete component, the names are manifold. Supercap, Ultracap, Goldcap, Greencap, a lot of manufacturer related names exist.
A look through the science literature shows, that roughly 70 to 80 % of the authors uses the term “Supercapacitor” (see: A Bibliometric Analysis of the International Literature in Supercapacitors, Francesco Lufrano* and Pietro Staiti, Int. J. Electrochem. Sci., 4 (2009) 173 – 186 PDF)
A google research gives 730,000 results for Supercapacitor, for Ultracapacitor only 363,000 (Date: 2013-05-07)
As of 2013 the term supercapacitor has prevailed as the alternative term instead of EDLC or ultracapacitor. One of the reason is surely the respect for B. E. Conway who coined the term supercapacitor. The term “ultracapacitor” also often to be found is used like a trade name for the capacitors from Maxwell, the market leader, and that seems for me like advertising.
By the way, most of the European countries are using the translated version of the term Supercapacitor.
So I am asking the Wikis how it can go on? I propose to insert my draft under “Electric double-layer capacitor”, and than move the article to the term “Supercapacitor”. Can I count with support? --Elcap (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
8031/8051: 1-bit architecture?
Could someone take a look at this edit in particular and perhaps the recent changes by the same editor to List of Intel microprocessors, 1-bit architecture and Intel MCS-51 in general? It looks to me like he is confusing the bit addressing instructions ("Boolean processor") here with the actual 8051 architecture, which is of course 8-bit. Before I respond to this, I would like a second opinion. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. n-bit architecture refers to the size of the data path and the size of the data path for the MCS-51 is definitely 8 bits. Being able to set, reset and test bits in a byte are computations that have nothing to do with the size of the data bus. But beyond my own understanding, a search for 'mcs-51 "1-bit architecture"' on Google nets 6 results, of which 2 are WP pages and the other 4 are not relevant. I know of no evidence that Intel or anybody else has declared the 8051 a 1-bit architecture. This looks like (mistaken) OR. --Mark viking (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- Preparing a reply. Please wait. Thank you. Tagremover (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Same problem with related edits such as this one that equates 1-bit archicture with Boolean processor. Note that the Boolean processors that he's concerned with have 8-bit instruction paths even when doing one-bit Boolean ops on 1-bit locations. I've never seen these concepts used interchangeably this way. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yup. It will be interesting to see the response. I remember that when I was just starting out in engineering (and the computers ran on steam) being told that I was wrong felt like an attack on my worth, but now finding out that I was wrong actually makes me happy -- it means that I have fixed an area where my mental model of the world does not match reality. I have noticed that those who still treat any technical disagreement as an attack tend to be wrong more often. I figure that this is because they are basically ineducable.
- Our Boolean data type article details how a boolean variable is often implemented with 8, 16, 32, or even 64 bits, with zero as false and any non-zero value as true. That's how the 8051 does it; instructions like JZ and JNZ work on bytes. Even JB and JNB, which work with bits, start with a byte and select the bit within the byte, which is why JB and JNB are three bytes long instead of two bytes long like JZ and JNZ. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
(Related content moved from user talk, where it does not belong. Tagremover (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC))
I would liken to talk to you about this edit in particular and other edits you have recently made to to List of Intel microprocessors, 1-bit architecture and Intel MCS-51.
First, could you please use the preview button instead of saving multiple times?
Second, please read WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD. When I reverted your edit, it was improper to re-revert me. Please don't do that again.
Third, you appear to be confused about the difference between bit addressing instructions and 1-bit architecture. The 8031/8051 has an 8-bit architecture. I have no idea what you think http://www.sfprime.net/i8031/ has to do with this, but it certainly does not say that the 8031/8051 has an 1-bit architecture.
I asked for a second opinion on this, and so far I have received the following responses:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Electronics#8031/8051: 1-bit architecture?
User talk:Andy Dingley#8031: 1-bit architecture?
Given the above, I am going to ask you to voluntarily undo any edits that you have made that are based upon your original research concerning what a 1-bit architecture is. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Reply
@Guy Macon: First, your tone is not really friendly, and that you are wrong, doesn't make it better. I programmed the 8051 for several projects since end of 1980s, so i know what i am talking about. And, in contrary to you (although i do respect self-trained engineers/scientists, i know some who are better than masters or professors), i am an highly educated engineer and scientist and worked several years in a microelectronic company (not Intel) in research and design of microcontrollers.
Second: Obviously you are unable to follow the rules you think they are important: Please read WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD. When I reverted your revert with the comment: "Of course it has 1-bit boolean processor: http://www.sfprime.net/i8031/", according to the rules listed by yourself it is not the recommended, best solution, to call others if they support your WRONG opinion, but to ask your question on the article talk first.
In fact, i am no too surprised, that there is a highly lack of knowledge about the "Boolean processor" in, of course (what else?), 1-bit architecture. The WRONG statements of 4, in Misplaced Pages language, "experienced editors" or even "experts" is a proof, that it is highly needed to highlight the Boolean processor and its function.
Because everything is already listed or linked in the article MCS-51, especially in the section Intel_MCS-51#Important_features_and_applications and the here most important ref: , i repeat the facts clearly marked.
Facts
- The Boolean processor is existing: See article refs and:
- Obviously it uses some special hardware: 8 to 1-bit read/write masking and some instruction hardware for 17 instructions. This is a FULL 1-BIT INSTRUCTION SET: The variants to manipulate a bit are limited. Result: Existence of Boolean processor proofed.
- Any processor has an architecture, and any existing processor architecture belongs to a processor. Result: Existence of Boolean architecture inside the 8051 proofed.
- The ALU operand width in the Boolean architecture is clearly 1-bit wide: 1-bit ALU, 1-bit accu, 1-bit register and memory, and if you STUDY this carefully, you see the bitwide "BUS" which is NOT a bus, but simply a wire/line. It leads to the accu. That many parts of the architecture are ADDITIONALLY usable in 8-bit processing, is NOT important: This is also the case in many other multiprocessor chips. Understand that a 1-bit processor hardware is really SMALL: See figures in booleanproc.pdf. Result: Existence of 1-bit architecture inside the 8051 proofed.
- Data bus width determines processor width: Clearly wrong. But: no absolutely exact definition possible. BEST: a) Most important/most used processor (ALU) in b) its highest OPERAND width, in which most (ALU) operations can performed.
- See Pentium 3: Internal/external 64bit data-bus, 32-bit ALUs, 80-bit copro, 128-bit SSE: Result: 32-bit
- 8051 variants in your credit card: 1-bit (serial) external, 8-bit internal: Result: 8-bit
- Many other examples with different external/internal data-bus widths, search yourself.
- Result: external/internal Data-bus width is no proof at all for determining processor width.
Disputed
a) There is some confusion about the data-bus width, with some WRONGLY state to be 8-bit wide: See its an ADDITIONAL 1-bit processor using its bit-line (if you like: "bus") and reuses some hardware, which is EXCELLENT (carry-bit = accu spares sometimes a move), but outside the 1-bit architecture it uses the 8-bit bus.
b) Obviously it is called "boolean processor" because it is an processor: It will be confusing if someone describes: We added an xx-bit architecture, but nearly always: ...includes XYZ processor.
c) Its a full instruction set, a full boolean, 1-bit operand wide processor, not only bit addressing
d) Instruction length (opcode) determines processor width: Clearly wrong: otherwise for example the 8051 would be an up to 24-bit processor, see also other examples.
e) Address bus width is notable, but clearly not the the most important width: otherwise the 8051 would be a 16-bit.
Results + Discussion
I hope to pointed clearly the facts. Otherwise it is all in WIkipedia listed and linked.
Before you revert my edits because you think, external and/or internal data-bus width determines a processor (architecture) width, YOU should consequently change the Pentium 3 to 64-bit, or the 8051 in your credit-card to 1-bit. Remember: All buses have a protocol with an operand width: THATS independent from physical bus width and PROCESSED by the PROCESSOR in its (input) OPERAND-WIDTH ARCHITECTURE. See also all the others facts and faults.
Of course you can ignore my effort; 4 editors can easily revert me: Remember yours faults will be in the history. Otherwise you can thank me for highlighting a often misunderstood feature: THE BOOLEAN PROCESSOR built obviously with (mostly) 1-bit architecture by partly reusing 8-bit parts: BUT MUST INCLUDE masking to 1-bit: The 1-bit architecture. Tagremover (talk) 11:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- You failed to address my first and second points.
- Second, please read WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD. When I reverted your edit, it was improper to re-revert me. Please don't do that again. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now, first, this seems intolerant to other, highly experienced editors and their style, and could be seen as unfriendly. You found the preview button, too? Should i explain other functions of the editor to you?
- Second: Read carefully, i addressed that point: You were factually wrong and your revert improper, my revert was reasonable with sufficient explanation: Do you understand that? Please read the reason again. Please read also WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD, and best my whole reasons above and the article. Please don't do that again.
- I mention your tone a second time, i think it could be improved. Tagremover (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can we please keep issues of editor behaviour off this page, the electronics project is not the appropriate place and will not help to resolve the electronic problem. Tagremover, you do not need to post these long harangues. Just a simple link to one reliable source describing the MCS-51 as a one-bit processor is all you need to do to settle the matter.
- This book would appear to have the description we need: "Arithmetic and logic unit of 8051 performs arithmetic and logical operations on 8-bit operands." And later "there is a separate Boolean Processor integrated within the 8051 microcontroller. It has its own instruction set, accumulator and bit addressable RAM." If I understand this correctly, it is saying that there is a 1-bit architecture processor embedded within an 8-bit architecture microcontroller. So essentially the 8051 is 8-bit architecture, but has a component within it which is 1-bit architecture. The Intel data sheet provided by Tagremover seems to bear this out: "The instructions in figure 3b can operate directly upon 144 general purpose bits forming the Boolean processor 'RAM'." With the clear implication that it cannot operate directly on the general purpose data RAM. SpinningSpark 14:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- The 8051's "Boolean processor" (as named on Intel's datasheet) has an 8 bit data bus. It not only offers bit operations, it offers those bit operations across any chosen bit of the 8 bit register. This is a "Boolean processor", but it's not a "1-bit processor" Andy Dingley (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)