Talk:RuBee

"Talk" you make things difficult and are off base - LF tags 125 Khz are all (100%) back scatter - easy to check that out - LF has a range of 8" to 12" - some claim 3' but I do not know anyone that has been able to achieve that - We work with USDA and Livestock and LF has a range of 8" - Oil and Gas has spent many millions on LF and again only 8" -

RuBee has ranges of up to 70' (seventy) - we have a video on www.rubee.com that shows a tag with range of 50'

Active RFID and all the ISO standards I know take a passive back scatter tag add a battery,it is still back scattered - What RuBee does has been reviewed and prosecuted now in over 20 issued patents as well as an international standard IEEE 1902.1 - if you don't understand how it works please do not make changes

If you want to say something different please provide references on RFID standards that claim to work as transponders - WiFi Zigbee Bluetooth - all IEEE 802 standards are Transceivers and so is RuBee - We do not consider 802 devices RFID - others do think WiFi is RFID ,,,,

Einstein introduced concept of Aether I think in 1907 - I do not have time right to address your physics issues - soem are right but many are not correct - You should read many papers on entanglement - Einstein proposed though experiment as proof that everything has to be at or below C (speed of light) - that turned into now a classic paper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkmstevens (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

---

LF tags are indeed all 125 kHz -- and they work by inductive coupling, NOT backscatter. This needs to be changed. The tag range is limited BECAUSE they work in the near field.

As for the aether, if you want to delve into a discussion of aether THEORY and all the attached baggage, edit the page on aether theories. My point was that that is not at all relevant to how RuBee works, stick to well accepted Lorentz-invariant electromagnetics at least.

This page contains lots of irrelevant information... and it reads like it was written by someone with half an undergrad degree in physics. Even more was added since I last edited!

--Crspechicn (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Updates

Sections at top had incorrectly claimed active RFID and RuBee are similar - they are not similar Active RFID is still a transponder - RuBee is Peer-to-peer packet based like WiFi Added few points that are fundamental at top re wavelength and Planck's law - these have proven to be critical in many high security applications - Rubee is in use in highest security sites on planet becuase of this fact also, HERO issues need to be discussed. - We keep getting changes that are incorrect or misleading

Let's not forget that there are also standards for inductive RFID (LF - 125 KHz), which is not backscatter based but relies on near field coupling. So "All passive and active RFID protocols use what is known as backscattered transmission mode." is incorrect, unless you include UHF in there.

--Crspechicn (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

I agree that the "How RuBee Works" section contains many sloppy and incorrect details, including:

• This section does not explain how RuBee works, it explains how near-field coupling works.

• Maxwell's Equations do not describe how electrons travel in a wire, they describe the relationship between the sources of electric and magnetic fields (${\vec {J}},\rho$ - antennas) to the values of those fields (${\vec {E}},{\vec {H}}$). In fact, Ohm's law is derived from the equation of motion of electrons in an applied electric field in a material, not Maxwell's Equations.

• There is no "aether" that waves propagate through, waves will propagate in vacuum.

• The near field is not necessarily just a comparison to the wavelength of the signal, it also includes the size of the antenna through:

$S={\frac {D^{2}}{4\lambda }}$

• The assumed impedance of free space - "the aether" - (the square root of the ratio of the permeability to the permittivity) is not altered in the near field (the propagation medium does not change). What changes is the strength of the reactive components of the fields which die off in the far field... so what is actually changing is the WAVE impedance not the "aether" impedance.

• The speed of light c does not change, ever. The speed of light in the material v changes.

• The fields strengths are "compared" at the end of that section, but the units are wrong and don't make sense without a reference. E fields are measured in (V/m) as was stated earlier, but in this section its nW. Change the H field measure to power or change the E field to V/m. Oh, and a Tesla is the unit of magnetic induction ${\vec {B}}$, not field strength ${\vec {H}}$. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crspechicn (talk • contribs) 19:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

--Crspechicn (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know specific details RuBee implementation, but the discussion about "How RuBee Works" section is filled with electromagnetics that is either sloppy or incorrect. I propose a couple of corrections here to make this more accurate:

• LF transmission occurs antennas that emit electromagnetic energy, which is a combination of both magnetic (H) and electric (E) fields. The wavelength of a 125 KHz RF signal is 2.4 Km, which much longer than the 3m to 30m operational range of these devices; the data is therefore being transmitted in the near field, where magnetic (rather than electromagnetic) coupling dominates.
• Magnetic fields be distorted by ferromagnetic rocks

--Lurgyman63 18:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for comments

The reason magnetic field dominates has more to do with length of the antenna - you are correct that it is near field but E can be very strong in near field with any HF or UHF systems - if you have an antenna that is 1/10 or less E goes down and H starts to win ...

Someone futz with this article - I have only IP address -

I will continue to update this page - I am Chair of 1902.1 IEEE workgroup. and chairman of Visible Assets - All of what is in this article is verifiable - thanks John Stevens

I have added brief discussion of near field - and explained tuning issues thanks for interest

Jkmstevens 11:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a 20 ton injection molding mach. that has been tuned to 131Khz with the loop antenna - can read tags inside the mach. - this is not in article since might be considered OR

I don't know yet where to report, but the physical part of the article is, excuse me, a pile of crap. I'd like some professional physicists to take a look and either remove this article totally, or, if it does have a meaningful content, fix the "explanation" part, eliminating all the cute nonsense. Vlad Patryshev 03:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Vlad - I am the Chair of 1902.1 - I am also a physicists (PhD, Penn 1974) be specfic with regard your criticisms - The cute "nonsense" has helped a lot people who are non-physicist understand complex issues. Think can deal with specifics - like the resonant frequency of ??? is really ??? .

I referenced solid items and documented each - I have received many complaints re your edits from IEEE members and many others - unless your specific about issues -- all changes you have been made will be reversed.

Thanks John Stevens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkmstevens (talk • contribs) 13:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

New Changes and Expert

After discussions with admins at Wiki I have reverted the article back to older version

1. I have tightened Tone in How RuBee works sections - only serious issue..

2. As per Wiki rules this article contains no Original Research and is verifiable - you want to challange that you must be specific - and do it here in talk for changes to stay ..... I will respond within 72 hours.

3. I am a Ph.D. in Biophysics and an expert in this area - I have taught many graduate physics courses at several well known Universities - this article has been reviewed by two other physics experts. Its language is intentionally simple - it is not ment to be overly technical - However it is accurate and verifiable.

If you are an administrator please identify yourself here in "talk" before you make any additional changes....

If you are just person do the same please - "this is pile of crap" does not qualify as a comment.

IEEE 1902.1 was passed by work group unanimously in July with over 17 independent companies participating in the work group. It is technically still pending (P1902.1) but will issue by the end of the year. It is in use at DOE, especially in high security areas, the DoD, many hospitals and a number of new Rubee enabled products are scheduled for launch in 2008.. this site is used by many as an introduction to 1902.1 and RuBee world wide .... We all want to to be accurate and easy to understand.. and up to date .. please help with that.

Thanks Very Much

John Stevens Chair IEEE 1902.1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkmstevens (talk • contribs) 20:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the Feng Shui section -- added two references re difficulty of predicting RF outcomes in real world and why - thought might be source of comment above from Vlad -- magnetic communication (inductive) has proven it self over many years - for example t-coil's used in hearing aids

I will add more references and details re why inductive communication is not as modified by local environmental factors -- Vald -- Epson has a demo center in San Jose if you would like to see all of this work - they are supporter of 1902.1

I removed the expert warning in Talk as well as warning to non-referenced pictures - both repaired

Thanks John Stevens, Chair IEEE P1902.1 Jkmstevens 13:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement

1. The top part is rather heavy, the facts are scattered, examples are provided at inappropriate times, for example the top section. Please consider summarizing the top more and put details and examples in other headings. Work out the "structure" you want the article to have first and then re-write the top part - like an executive summary no more than 5 lines. Have a read here for some guidelines.
2. The article has 3 headings: How it works, RF Feng Shui and pros & cons. Consider breaking it up more. See example below.
3. The RF Feng Shui term is a bit hard to handle, I think thats were many skeptics are coming from. I work in mobile RF and it's the first time I heard the effect of metal objects within the near field being called Feng Shui. If you want to stick with it, you should reference the term, even try to illustrate it. ... practice of placement and arrangement of space to achieve harmony with the environment... from Feng shui. I would even consider "giving up" on the term and call it something else, it is not like one would re-arrange the furniture to get a better signal, but you tune the system to work around the furniture (and when the furniture is re-arranged, one retunes again).
4. RuBee is not RFID by reading your article I would disagree, I think the article states it has a lot in common with RFID, that is RFID as an application. I think what you meant is that it is not based in the same principles and implementations as RFID - hence the comparison section suggested above.
5. use citation templates to reference the main points of the article, specially references that can be read (such as IEEE PDFs, press releases, etc) Example:
   http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/pr_p19021Rubee.html
6. Consider explaining some of the points in layman's terms. This is for an Encyclopedia, not for an IEEE book. Think of a target audience of advanced science high-school or University freshmen, not an audience of your peers.
7. Since there are many points here, I suggest changing one section at a time. My suggestion is to use a Wikipedia:Todo box in the top of the talk page to list accepted ideas and strike them through when they are done. Like this: Change A (done!)

A quick example how to structure the article from the top of my head:

1. How it works
2. Comparisons ( they could be in tabulated form?)
   1. Comparison with RFID?
   2. With other standards
   3. Benefits & Disadvantages
3. Using the technology
   1. Possible applications
   2. Equipment
      1. Tags
      2. Receivers?
      3. Chips
      4. Network routers
      5. Other RuBee equipment
      6. List of manufacturers
4. Industry precursors pre-standardizations
   1. Company X - application, dates, etc (this could be an article on its own!)
   2. Company Y
   3. Company Z
5. Standardization
   1. History/Process
   2. What does standardization bring?
6. RF Feng Shui (so called, see below)
7. Notes / References (merge?)
8. Further reading

--Figarema |^Talk 19:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply Ideas for improvement

Figarema

Thanks for taking time to comment on article - anxious to get help, and will read style pages you reference and appreciate your thoughtful comments

I will address issues in-line below

Point One

1. The top part is rather heavy, the facts are scattered, examples are provided at inappropriate times, for example the top section. Please consider summarizing the top more and put details and examples in other headings. Work out the "structure" you want the article to have first and then re-write the top part - like an executive summary no more than 5 lines. Have a read here for some guidelines.

Will try to cleanup - however - please keep in mind we have spent three months defending this site -- keep in mind that was only section left after deletions few weeks ago - Wiki admin concluded it was vandalism - kinda insurance that we have something left to say after both legs removed -

It is a pity you had such a hard time, btw try to indent responses (put : at the front) and sign them with --~~~~, if you are new to wiki, I recommend you get adopted so that someone can answer your questions WP:ADOPTION) -says that and leaves this unsigned *blush*- use the old saying: divide and conquer, i.e. modularise the article as if you were planning an RF block diagram --Figarema |^Talk 05:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Figarema - Sorry it is signed in last point 7 -- will do best to pick up format conventions.. - I noticed you have a WiKi editor? - hard to believe no WSIWYG editor for wikipedia and still all done in HTML like manual markup code - I will learn again, had many things at tips of fingers when we did this several months ago -- easy to forget - real issue is many others are blocked from use of site with lot of depth and subject matter expertise because of that markup language - Many people would like to contribute but do just do not have background to write a "text wiki program" ... - Thanks --Jkmstevens 15:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Point Two

1. The article has 3 headings: How it works, RF Feng Shui and pros & cons. Consider breaking it up more. See example below.

will do

Point three

1. The RF Feng Shui term is a bit hard to handle, I think thats were many skeptics are coming from. I work in mobile RF and it's the first time I heard the effect of metal objects within the near field being called Feng Shui. If you want to stick with it, you should reference the term, even try to illustrate it. ... practice of placement and arrangement of space to achieve harmony with the environment... from Feng shui.

Our rational for Feng Shui

Think anyone who has worked with RF will tell you the environment is part of the circuit - provide references (and have added this AM) - We need a new term to explain this -- The Physics is simple

E is both blocked and reflected by Steel - antennas are also de-tunned - Thats why Spread spectrum was developed and now in widespread use in places with Steel (e.g. Symbol's RF handhelds (now Motorola) is all spread spectrun becuase it operates in warehouses. Spread spectrum is not practical as a RFID solution.

Look at

http://www.pictpix.com/PPM/IDTechEx_%20RFID%20progress%20at%20Wal-Mart.pdf

that 44% failure rate because of steel and liquids - I saw a demo yesterday where even cotton blocked a 915 Mhz tag because it had moisture - its quit serious.

H is not reflected and not blocked by steel - it can be warped or distorted - however with a properly tunned loop antenna the RuBee signal is often enhanced by steel - Steel can de-tune a RuBee antenna however it can be re tuned so entire steel item and the Rubee antenna resonate at 131KHz - again this is experimental and we have great papers on this - but it is original research - HOWEVER let me emphasize it is totally expected from simple resonate circuit design and intro Physics 101 - We actually have a patent issued on how to turn a steel shelf into a tunned H antenna (see US4,937,586) issued in 1990.

So E has three problems in harsh environments H has one - now a simple descriptive term is useful - Maybe RF Feng Shui is too cute but sure sticks -- give me some other suggestions  ? Also see below on point four..

Is the term RF Feng Shui, an original use in this article? Although it may be a useful concept it may be original research. And if it is not, it should have its own article, even if it's not engineering or scientifically written. Some external references to support the black magic idea could be added. I would have called it an art as either there is skill, explanations, unexplained practices or traditions, but nothing like incantations or wands. Graeme Bartlett 23:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Point Four

1. I would even consider "giving up" on the term and call it something else, it is not like one would re-arrange the furniture to get a better signal, but you tune the system to work around the furniture (and when the furniture is re-arranged, one retunes again).

Figarema - You actually do rearrange the furniture with RFID to get a better signal - thats why we used Feng Shui -- you only re-tune antenna with H or RuBee - you do not move furniture with RuBee ...

Point Five

1. RuBee is not RFID by reading your article I would disagree, I think the article states it has a lot in common with RFID, that is RFID as an application.

RFID is not an application -

Tracking is an application - Visibility is an application - You won't make many friends by saying that RuBee is RFID - RFID is a passive non-radiating transponder - 100's of patents have been issued since 1979 when this concept of backscattered resonance was first introduced - 100% of those claim to be RFID and all are non-radiating transponders. Also 100's have been issued linked to WiFi Zigbee bluetooth and other transceiver technologies not one claims to be RFID -- I have some detailed material that can provide if useful - RuBee is a radiating transceiver - it does not even have an ID (it uses IP addresses and subnet addresses) - RuBee tags do have a MAC address, but not used for networking.

RFID can not be everything in world linked to radio or magnetic signal

Let me ask you is WiFi and Zigbee and cell phones and bluetooth RFID as well - This leads to lot of confusion for high school students and even engineers - RuBee is a peer to peer packet based, on demand protocol - it is not a transponder - You can not easily make RFID work in visibility applications - it is really for tracking and events - its a bar code replacement - Visibility often requires real time status, pedigrees and sensors.. My own company and other RuBee user companies deal with above everyday - NASA is using RuBee for monitoring many things, DOE uses RuBee for weapon visibility, but also monitors number of shots for maintenance records, Rubee tags are used in many high security applications with full public private key encryptions - that requires date time - can not do any of this with RFID --

Visibility is a new category and right now only contenders are RuBee Wifi Zigbee - but in harsh environments or where security is critical RuBee usually wins - RFID is usually not considered for any of these applications.

Even the editor of RFID Journal has finally backed down calling RuBee RFID..

Point Six

I think what you meant is that it is not based in the same principles and implementations as RFID - hence the comparison section suggested above.

1. use citation templates to reference the main points of the article, specially references that can be read (such as IEEE PDFs, press releases, etc) Example:
   http://standards.ieee.org/announcements/pr_p19021Rubee.html
2. Consider explaining some of the points in layman's terms. This is for an Encyclopedia, not for an IEEE book. Think of a target audience of advanced science high-school or University freshmen, not an audience of your peers.

Again I apologize that this is far from perfect article - I am very busy and have not had as much time as I would like to spend on reference format or other things you mention - I do understand not for peers - We have a communications budget and would love ot get professional wikipeadian to help - But do need help to watch site - seems like a mention RFID brings in an attack -- less true now

To be honest my company and others do not see RFID in market as even a minor competitor any more ..

EPC RFID might be a better term versus RFID in general. I was part of the original bar code committees in 72 and 73 and have been part of the EPCglobal committees to help generate a set of standards for augmenting and potentially (very long term) replacing the bar code. EPC stands for electronic product code. Large user companies such as Tesco have tried to explain it to consumers as a "Radio Bar Code". It definitely is not an application since the numbering scheme is by the standards definition a bar code plus a serial number. There is no additional information that would describe the product, where it came from or anything that occurred to it through its life cycle.

The technology portion of the EPC RFID standard currently defines the air interface protocol for how an EPC RFID tag can "talk" with a reader. This standard - EPC Gen 2 uses Ultra High Frequency UHF which is 860-960Mhz. There are 7 additional standards for allowing a user to get to information about the product, wher it came from, how it was shipped and what its status might have been as it went by some reader along the way.Pabell13 13:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Point Seven

1. Since there are many points here, I suggest changing one section at a time. My suggestion is to use a Wikipedia:Todo box in the top of the talk page to list accepted ideas and strike them through when they are done. Like this: Change A (done!)

A quick example how to structure the article from the top of my head:

1. How it works
2. Comparisons ( they could be in tabulated form?)
   1. Comparison with RFID?
   2. With other standards
   3. Benefits & Disadvantages
3. Using the technology
   1. Possible applications
   2. Equipment
      1. Tags
      2. Receivers?
      3. Chips
      4. Network routers
      5. Other RuBee equipment
      6. List of manufacturers
4. Industry precursors pre-standardizations
   1. Company X - application, dates, etc (this could be an article on its own!)
   2. Company Y
   3. Company Z
5. Standardization
   1. History/Process
   2. What does standardization bring?
6. RF Feng Shui (so called, see below)
7. Notes / References (merge?)
8. Further reading

--Figarema |^Talk 19:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This helps and will try to use as a guide - thanks for taking this seriously and spending so much time

Regards John Stevens

Jkmstevens 22:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

EPC RFID and RuBee

I am an expert in the various standards relating to Auto identification starting with my involvement in the Bar Code Committees in 1972,73. EPC RFID is perhaps a better way to discuss the differences in RuBee. EPC (Electronic Product Code) is the numbering scheme developed by EPCglobal which is a wholly owned subsidiary of GS1 to augment and eventually replace the bar code. It in essence is a bar code with a serial number added to it. There is no description of the product or contents, where it was manufactured or anything that happened to it en route to its destination.

The technology portion of the standard is known as EPC Gen 2. It describes the air interface protocol or the way the tag (chip and antenna) "talk" to the reader. This standard uses the ultra high frequency (UHF) band between 860-960Mhz. There are seven (7) additional standards to obtain the information above. The basic principle is to have the data of the tag be an address to look up all the information about the product from the original manufacturer as well as additional service providers that may have been involved in the product's transit. This is the same as the present day bar code with the notable exception of the serial number which can therefore be unique from each on of the same product ie every bottle of water can be unique from every other by the serial number.Pabell13 14:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

EPC RFID and RuBee Differences

EPC RFID definitely is not an application. It may be used as an ID for an application ie a recall of a specific product from a manufacturer with serial numbers from x to y. Currently, its major use is barely started that is it is used as a supply chain identifier for cases and pallets in an open loop among numerous trading partners. Multiple companies and multiple disciplines are involved in this "open loop". The primary participants are well known Wal-Mart and Metro AG (German mass merchant similiar to Wal-Mart). They carry millions of SKUs from tens of thousands of different companies across their global supply chains. Bar code did not work well at the case and pallet level for them and they have been trying to make EPC Gen 2 work. It is successful for some types of products notably paper where liquid and metals cause little problem. Since the tags work in essence like a mirror (the radio energy is received by the antenna for the tag, the IC is turned on and sends back its 96 bit ID (manufacturer ID, product code and serial number) or 256 UID in the case of the DoD, the tracking occurs only when in the presence of a reader sending energy to the tag and receiving back the ID and sending it through middleware to the application which in turn has to retrieve information about the ID from the original manufacturer through an intermediary. This signpost method of "this ID was here at this time" requires a large number of signposts to track something in a manner that permits an application to validate the various locations where something has been and establish its probable path.Pabell13 19:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

New Edits Sep 5th

I reduced size of introduction and made it a brief overview - moved few items around in other sections, and deleted redundant items .. still needs lot of work but adding bit day by day -- Pete Abell summary above is great - we need to WikI train others in workgroup

Jkmstevens 13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Marked for cleanup

After reading this article I was half convinced the protocol was entirely made up.

It claims in the second paragraph that RuBee uses "magnetic photons", linking to a stub which says "There is no experimental evidence for the existence of this particle". Later it claims that "RF is based on physics", and links to a (dead) link on "RF Microwaves, and Migraines".

I find the language generally unencyclopedic, being overly promotive and using devices like rethorical question. Some examples: "the highest possible security of Mission Critical Assets", "How big can a RuBee loop antenna be?", "This rack likes to vibrate (resonate) at the RuBee frequency". "James Clerk Maxwell presented his now famous set of equations (Maxwell's Equations) to the Royal Society in 1864."

Unless the protocol introduces entirely novel physics (which it may well from what I can tell from the article), the physics lecture should be dropped. Link to the relevant articles and explain the protocol with accepted technical terminology.

The "Unique RuBee application example" reads like a sales page or a press release, complete with the registered trademarks. It goes into too much detail on a specific product offering, and could be replaced with a very shorts "applications" notice.

I'm tempted to remove most of the article - it requires extensive rewriting, and the subject, as far as I can tell, is not really notable enough to warrant the excessive detail. Previous editors appear to have had some conflicts of interest.

Marking for general cleanup in the hope of catching the attention of someone who knows the proper procedures.

81.191.75.236 (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Gate Guard 20 (Type X mat) transparent 01 2.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gate Guard 20 (Type X mat) transparent 01 2.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

About the possible merge with IEEE 1902.1

The present article RuBee describe a partial commercial implementation of the Standard from the IEEE 1902.1. RuBee is a trade mark and IEEE is not its owner. Many other products can use IEEE 1902.1 and therefore, it is wise to separate the IEEE 1902.1 description that uses the standard as the base for the article and RuBee that uses a successful commercial implementation. RuBee should focus on the description of the commercial implementation and the specificities, differences and limitations. Later, the IEEE 1902.1 can integrate some valuable technical features into the standard if it is prove to be definitely better for it. Merging the 2 articles is not recommendable and would create profound and durable instabilities. I request the closing of this suggestion. Pghislain (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Meteor sandwich yum (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

 Merge declined meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on RuBee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110525014758/http://www.edn.com/contents/images/150828.pdf to http://www.edn.com/contents/images/150828.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on RuBee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110207141135/http://rubee.com/ to http://www.rubee.com
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525014758/http://www.edn.com/contents/images/150828.pdf to http://www.edn.com/contents/images/150828.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)