Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:47, 16 May 2009

• November 2006 - Febuary 2007

Thanks a bunch.

Any help is really, really appreciated. There's a lot of work to do and doing it alone is just plain evil.Headbomb {
_{— ταλκ / Wikiproject Physics: Projects of the Week} 03:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Magnetometer/Comments

Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TN‑X-Man 17:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Magnetometer/Comments

It looks like you were trying to add something to the talk page of this article (which you can find here), but accidentally created a page instead. I nominated the page you accidentally created for deletion. I hope this helps. Cheers. TN‑X-Man 18:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

category-->catcat-2008-06-20T00:28:00.000Z">

Why are you changing them?

I am trying to clear the unassessed articles a little. Category is not class that the bot recognizes for physics. You can check Template:Physics to see that cat is recognized. I figured that cat was the correct value and people just did not know it. I was a little worried that cat meant catalog or catatonic, but the result did mention category on the evaluation. The bot doesn't recognize list either, but there is nothing I can do about that.

It is not a big deal to me. I only changed 2 or 3 articles.

TStein (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)cat"> cat">

Yeah I frigged around with the cat category and saw what it did. I switched them back to cat since it made them properly categorized. I've tried to change the {{physics}} code but the page is locked and I don't know who to contact to have it unlocked/have the code changed.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 04:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)cat"> cat">

WikiProject Physics participation

You received this message because your were on the old list of WikiProject Physics participants.

On 2008-06-25, the WikiProject Physics participant list was rewritten from scratch as a way to remove all inactive participants, and to facilitate the coordination of WikiProject Physics efforts. The list now contains more information, is easier to browse, is visually more appealing, and will be maintained up to date.

If you still are an active participant of WikiProject Physics, please add yourself to the current list of WikiProject Physics participants. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Physics Poll

There is currently a poll about WikiProject Physics in general. Please take some time to answer it (or part of it), as it will help coordinate and guide the future efforts of the Project. Thank you. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 18:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Man (or woman) you really don't know how glad I am that you're back.

For a while, it felt like I was working in a vacuum. Thanks for helping with the behind the scene stuff! Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Navigation panel is not working correctly

See for example: Covariant formulation of classical electromagnetism

Articles about
Electromagnetism
Electricity Magnetism Optics History Computational Textbooks Phenomena
Electrostatics Charge density Conductor Coulomb law Electret Electric charge Electric dipole Electric field Electric flux Electric potential Electrostatic discharge Electrostatic induction Gauss law Insulator Permittivity Polarization Potential energy Static electricity Triboelectricity
Magnetostatics Ampère law Biot–Savart law Gauss magnetic law Magnetic dipole Magnetic field Magnetic flux Magnetic scalar potential Magnetic vector potential Magnetization Permeability Right-hand rule
Electrodynamics Bremsstrahlung Cyclotron radiation Displacement current Eddy current Electromagnetic field Electromagnetic induction Electromagnetic pulse Electromagnetic radiation Faraday law Jefimenko equations Larmor formula Lenz law Liénard–Wiechert potential London equations Lorentz force Maxwell equations Maxwell tensor Poynting vector Synchrotron radiation
Electrical network Alternating current Capacitance Current density Direct current Electric current Electric power Electrolysis Electromotive force Impedance Inductance Joule heating Kirchhoff laws Network analysis Ohm law Parallel circuit Resistance Resonant cavities Series circuit Voltage Watt Waveguides
Magnetic circuit AC motor DC motor Electric machine Electric motor Gyrator–capacitor Induction motor Linear motor Magnetomotive force Permeance Reluctance (complex) Reluctance (real) Rotor Stator Transformer
Covariant formulation Electromagnetic tensor Electromagnetism and special relativity Four-current Four-potential Mathematical descriptions Maxwell equations in curved spacetime Relativistic electromagnetism Stress–energy tensor
Scientists Ampère Biot Coulomb Davy Einstein Faraday Fizeau Gauss Heaviside Helmholtz Henry Hertz Hopkinson Jefimenko Joule Kelvin Kirchhoff Larmor Lenz Liénard Lorentz Maxwell Neumann Ohm Ørsted Poisson Poynting Ritchie Savart Singer Steinmetz Tesla Thomson Volta Weber Wiechert
v t e

Brews ohare (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There was vandalism on Template:electromagnetism page which Bdodo1992 (talk) fixed about an hour after it was vandalized and a little after you commented here. I cannot see any problems with the current template. If there is another problem let me know and I will do what I can. (My ability with templates is limited to hacking away until I get something that works.) Headbomb (talk) and others are better at that then I am.

Tagging.

I noticed that you've been tagging some articles with the bio parameter. You might as well save yourself the trouble, the bot will run over all these pages soon and do it for us. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I figured that out but late. It is amusing that I did everything in the wrong order. First I tagged a bunch of articles. Then I gave up and searched for a bot. After a lot of searching I finally found the right bot only to find that you were already there. Finally I stumbled across the talk page at BPH to find the link to the bot I took so long to find. The only way it could be funnier if it was someone else who stumbled around instead of me. TStein (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well to be honest, I was going to ask you to build a category list since I'm rather busy, but in building my request for help (finding example of what to include, what to exclude, etc...) I ended up having 80% of it done. So I just finished the job instead of bothering you. However, since you have an interest in tagging, and now have an example of a bot request for tagging, perhaps you could investigate the categories for the publications taskforce (perhaps it's there's no category suitable for tagging, perhaps there is). I haven't touched that yet, and don't plan to do so for a couple of days at least. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Headbomb, the list is up on BPH. I did what I could with no guarantees. It can be tricky to find all possible ways to sort something. I did not post it on the bot site since the bot administrator wants concensus first; although he has waived that requirement for you in the past. I would not say I have a huge interest in tagging, though. I just want to do what I can to help with the project as a whole. TStein (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it'll be a good starting point and is a huge help, I'll review them soon and go through your suggestion of invertigating the history of science categories and wikiproject. Thumbs up. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Faraday's law

Tstein, I noticed your comments about the time varying and convective components of Faraday's law on the magnetic field talk page. It's the first time that I've seen somebody else on wikipedia who can see the situation clearly for what it is. You described the situation exactly. It can all be explained as follows,

Consider that ${\displaystyle \mathbf {E} }$ is,

${\displaystyle \mathbf {E} =-({\frac {\partial \mathbf {A} }{\partial t}}-\mathbf {v} \times \mathbf {B} )}$

Then taking the curl, we get,

${\displaystyle \nabla \times \mathbf {E} =-({\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}+({\mathbf {v} \cdot \nabla })\mathbf {B} )=-{{d\mathbf {B} } \over dt}}$

I tried to put this into the main article at Faraday's law but it met with strenuous resistance. I never would have believed that such confusion could be stirred up because of differing semantics spread over a range of different sources. And yet when you lay the bare facts on the table, nobody wants to know. Nobody wants to see the simple underlying pattern behind it. Have a look at the talk page on Faraday's law to see what I mean. David Tombe (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks David. I have visited, Faraday's Law before and I agree it is a mess. I could put my two cents in there, but I am not quite sure that it would do any good. The opinions are so strong that I don't think I can convince anyone. (The same can be said about me, of course.) Perhaps I could come up with a better solution that works, but I wonder if it is worth the effort.

Truth be told, there are so many things that need to be fixed in WP that it is just easier to move on to something else where my efforts will hopefully be more appreciated and without someone else undoing my work.

I will probably come back to magnetic field etc.. once I calm down a little and don't feel like going on a mass revert spree. I am fixing up another mess with harmonic oscillators and my time is limited, though.

I agree with the spirit of your derivation, although the starting equation is not a commonly known relation, so you would first have to derive it. There are a lot of silly things in E&M where the even authors of textbooks get caught up in arguments. One of these is the craziness about what to call Faraday's law. Personally, I put the blame on Heaviside who forced Maxwell's equations into their modern 'symmetric form' and eliminated A and Phi as 'parasites' in favor of E and B. This has the unfortunate side effect of obfuscating the relativistic relationship between E and B. What elementary physic E&M textbook can afford (while discussing Faraday's law) to divert to a discussion of the symmettries of the electromagnetic field tensor.

In short, I will see what I can do but it might take a while.TStein (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Tstein, Absolutely. I also put the blame on Heaviside. In fact, I wrote about that very point here . Heaviside allowed the v×B term to disappear from Maxwell's equations. The equation which you said that I would have to derive first is aleady equation (77) in Maxwell's 1861 paper. This was all dealt with in detail by Maxwell. Maxwell gave detailed physical explanations for the two aspects of electromagnetic induction. The mess came when Lorentz and Einstein started putting the v×B term back in a again (when it got the name 'The Lorentz Force'). Feynman has got nothing to do with it all apart from the fact that he noticed that there were two aspects, but couldn't fully rationalize with the fact. David Tombe (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Attenuation (brewing)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Attenuation (brewing), and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.realbeer.com/spencer/attenuation.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Teach me not to move stuff out from a larger article-in this case Attenuation TStein (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops! I forgot the reflist. That should hopefully fix the problem. TStein (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)