![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
|
I reestablished the version of 12 May 2012 because later versions where corrupted. It seems as if 151.135.188.206 was trying to edit the page, but he corrupted it. (Lejarrag, May 20, 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lejarrag ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I have already just made some changes now. But...
Hope the edits are fine, and no one minds the fabulous colour boxes ( Maschen - if you are reading this you will be proud of you're most succesful WP creation. I have used this all over the place, including this article). =) -- F = q( E + v × B) 00:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
-- F = q( E + v × B) 01:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
its not very nice now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.175.203 ( talk) 23:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the variable for the point of application (), the parameter to , was written to be the same as the displacement vector from the line integral element to that parameter . So I introduced a new convention similar to the original, to alter the content minimally.
(I'd be happy to explain why it's the displacement vector and not the parameter vector that appears in the integrals and expressions, but the text already said this, it just wasn't reflected in the formulas.)
However, was already used in the proof section for the line integral element. Apart from conflicting with the new notation, this was already inconsistent with all formulas above, which used , so I changed this to use the existing convention, but maintain the explicit difference () which, I agree, is probably clearest (rather than using the displacement vector throughout).
If anyone has any concerns with this, please feel free to leave a reply (and to message me directly if I don't respond promptly).
-- RProgrammer ( talk) 17:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biot–Savart law. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
This article might be too high-level for this image, but I just made it for Wikiversity formula sheet.-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 00:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I brought it back. r and r-hat need to be r' and r'-hat to agree with the text.
Constant314 ( talk) 01:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
No prime on the l or the B. Constant314 ( talk) 03:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 Done--
Guy vandegrift (
talk) 04:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I see that you went with underscores instead of arrows. Its definitely not standard. The arrows are optional, but the underscores are a problem. Can you remove them? Constant314 ( talk) 04:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe that this remark "where A and B are the (signed) angles between the line and the two ends of the segment" is not correct. A and B should be the (signed) angles between the (vortex) line segment and the connection lines from the segment ends to the point (at which the induced velocity is calculated). This is not what is now stated. I recommend to check this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rschmehl ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The Biot-Savart law presented here is an integral. But the way I learned it, the integral was derived from a simpler expression of the law in its differential form:
(Actually, the professor didn't express it in vector form, so it was more like this: I think he did it this way so it looked more like a familiar inverse square law. So I'm guessing I got the vector form right.)
I wonder if it would make sense to present the differential form first, then show what the derived integral looks like. If not, I think it still makes sense to present the differential form somewhere. – MiguelMunoz ( talk) 11:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
|
I reestablished the version of 12 May 2012 because later versions where corrupted. It seems as if 151.135.188.206 was trying to edit the page, but he corrupted it. (Lejarrag, May 20, 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lejarrag ( talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I have already just made some changes now. But...
Hope the edits are fine, and no one minds the fabulous colour boxes ( Maschen - if you are reading this you will be proud of you're most succesful WP creation. I have used this all over the place, including this article). =) -- F = q( E + v × B) 00:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
-- F = q( E + v × B) 01:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
its not very nice now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.175.203 ( talk) 23:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the variable for the point of application (), the parameter to , was written to be the same as the displacement vector from the line integral element to that parameter . So I introduced a new convention similar to the original, to alter the content minimally.
(I'd be happy to explain why it's the displacement vector and not the parameter vector that appears in the integrals and expressions, but the text already said this, it just wasn't reflected in the formulas.)
However, was already used in the proof section for the line integral element. Apart from conflicting with the new notation, this was already inconsistent with all formulas above, which used , so I changed this to use the existing convention, but maintain the explicit difference () which, I agree, is probably clearest (rather than using the displacement vector throughout).
If anyone has any concerns with this, please feel free to leave a reply (and to message me directly if I don't respond promptly).
-- RProgrammer ( talk) 17:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biot–Savart law. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
This article might be too high-level for this image, but I just made it for Wikiversity formula sheet.-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 00:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I brought it back. r and r-hat need to be r' and r'-hat to agree with the text.
Constant314 ( talk) 01:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
No prime on the l or the B. Constant314 ( talk) 03:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 Done--
Guy vandegrift (
talk) 04:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I see that you went with underscores instead of arrows. Its definitely not standard. The arrows are optional, but the underscores are a problem. Can you remove them? Constant314 ( talk) 04:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I believe that this remark "where A and B are the (signed) angles between the line and the two ends of the segment" is not correct. A and B should be the (signed) angles between the (vortex) line segment and the connection lines from the segment ends to the point (at which the induced velocity is calculated). This is not what is now stated. I recommend to check this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rschmehl ( talk • contribs) 07:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
The Biot-Savart law presented here is an integral. But the way I learned it, the integral was derived from a simpler expression of the law in its differential form:
(Actually, the professor didn't express it in vector form, so it was more like this: I think he did it this way so it looked more like a familiar inverse square law. So I'm guessing I got the vector form right.)
I wonder if it would make sense to present the differential form first, then show what the derived integral looks like. If not, I think it still makes sense to present the differential form somewhere. – MiguelMunoz ( talk) 11:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)