![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I don't know what is correct and what is not. But i do know, the article does not explain anything. You may be using the correct technical jargon but it is menaingless to everybody else but physicists specialising on magnetism. Those however would already know these. Thus this page is pointless but a battlefield of great egos: "I'm right and you are not". The whole lot is useless until you learn to express yourself. Now comes the argument "You have to know the technical jargon ... " . No, I DON'T! Especially because i come here to learn about it. If you don't support this you are useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.177.64 ( talk) 12:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys. I heard that there is no magnetic monopole. What do you think about it ? Bête spatio-temporelle ( talk) 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much point to Magnetic pole strength. The substance of the article is discussed in Magnetic moment#Magnetic pole definition, Magnetic field#Magnetic pole model and the H-field, Magnetostatics, Demagnetizing field and Magnetic monopole, where in my opinion the context makes the discussion more useful. Also, as it is the article is rather dismissive of magnetic poles, but the magnetic pole model is widely used in permanent magnet applications (see Demagnetizing field). RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Then where to re-direct? Magnetic monopoles or here? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 21:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
FKLS ( talk · contribs) has reverted this merge. The discussion only lasted a day, so I have re-opened it so more people can comment. RockMagnetist ( talk) 18:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
It should go like this:
where is unit vector pointing from magnetic moment to , and is the distance between those two magnetic dipole moments.
http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf
Ze-aksent ( talk) 06:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead and try it, see what you get. And how would you arrive at 1/r^4 relation from that equation in the article? By the way, reference given in the article links to document that is missing page 140 where that equation is supposed to be, so what kind of reference is that? Can you point some actual reference for that equation given in the article?
Ze-aksent ( talk) 04:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Where do you see on top? There is not. There is no even any "unit vector" there but only "direction vector". That's not the same thing. And don't you see 1/r^2 in there? So you are telling me this equation in the article comes out as 1/r^4? And there is no any reference for it? Most text books don't have it because barely anyone knows about it, the equation did not exist until 1998. Guys who first derived it should be credited properly, their paper should be the reference for this equation, and that wrong equation given in the articles that has no proper reference should go into rubbish.
Ze-aksent ( talk) 10:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this what you mean, Ze-aksent?
Maschen ( talk) 13:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
That's better. Thank you for that, it makes sense now. I don't see irony though, I think that was terrible way to write it. It surely confused me. Not that I'm much familiar with math and different notations, but still the one you wrote I expect would be far more readable and self-explanatory to other people as well:
And this one still even more elegant, and specific having magnetic moments denoted as vectors:
So now having that sorted out the other point still stands, which is that reference given for it does not contain the page where that equation came from. And also, if those people in that paper I gave a link to were the first ones to derive it, then I think their paper deserves to be the reference for this equation.
Ze-aksent ( talk) 14:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it's fair you laugh at me. I simply could not make sense of it, and I think if I didn't take that attitude you probably wouldn't be motivated to explain all that as you did. Basically I used arrogance to get a free lesson. Hope you don't mind, I really appreciate it. -- I'd like to see the equation in the article be change to either one you wrote or the one from the paper I gave a link to. And if you would put the equations you wrote in the article then I think magnetic moments should be denoted as vectors. By the way, I don't know how to add references, tried once and screwed some things, not really that much motivated about it to learn it. Anyway, thanks again! Cheers.
Ze-aksent ( talk) 15:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
<ref>
...(insert ref here)...</ref>
. Its good to use the template {{
citebook}}, {{
citejournal}} or similar (they are link from these templates), and just fill the parameters in with the information provided. See
Wikipedia:Citing sources for fuller descriptions, if not already.That's fine RockMagnetist. Although that section is deleted, just in case it's reinstated, or used elsewhere, I thought to let the editors of this article know that I colourized and redrew File:Dipoledipole.svg to this;
Nice trim though! Thanks, Maschen ( talk) 17:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Great. Thank you RockMagnetist, that makes me happy, and I think it will be more readable for other people as well. If for nothing else then it makes obvious it is 1/r^4 relation and not something else. -- As for vector notation, I don't think bold is very good way, especially if the whole equation ends up in bold. And while it certainly is not an issue, I would also put all the multiplicands before brackets rather than behind, like this:
Ze-aksent ( talk) 22:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure glad it turned out that way and that I could be of some help while not really understanding much of it. Funny. Now, there is that other article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dipole ...it still has the old equation. It makes me wonder if such redundancy of the same material across different articles is a good thing, since if you don't synchronize some change and modify all the articles that deal with the subject some articles might end up to contradicting others. In any case I'll leave all that to you and other experienced Wikipedia editors. I got the lesson I was after and I'm happy if it also makes that part of this article more clear for everyone. Good-bye!
Ze-aksent ( talk) 01:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
One suggestion: move the section Effects of an external magnetic field on a magnetic moment into the Magnetic dipoles section, so that the units and Gyromagnetic effect (more useful/informative to reader) come before the formal maths (useful but not for all readers)? Maschen ( talk) 18:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Since the page on magnetic poles was merged here, the hyperlink on "pole strength" redirects back to the same page. Maybe a few lines need to be added to clarify whether pole strength is defined in terms of the dipole moment or the dipole moment in terms of the pole strength. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KitchiRUs ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Your point is correct, the definition as stated is outdated by about 100 years.
The magnetic moment is now defined in terms of how magnets are affected by magnetic fields, rather than the other way around.
This is in contrast to the electric dipole term of the multipole expansion, which is defined based on a distance approximation to the field.
In practice, of course, magnetic moments can be measured either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwkeohane ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
can anyone talk about the angular momentum for the current loop case? Jackzhp ( talk) 04:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I don't know what is correct and what is not. But i do know, the article does not explain anything. You may be using the correct technical jargon but it is menaingless to everybody else but physicists specialising on magnetism. Those however would already know these. Thus this page is pointless but a battlefield of great egos: "I'm right and you are not". The whole lot is useless until you learn to express yourself. Now comes the argument "You have to know the technical jargon ... " . No, I DON'T! Especially because i come here to learn about it. If you don't support this you are useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.177.64 ( talk) 12:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys. I heard that there is no magnetic monopole. What do you think about it ? Bête spatio-temporelle ( talk) 12:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be much point to Magnetic pole strength. The substance of the article is discussed in Magnetic moment#Magnetic pole definition, Magnetic field#Magnetic pole model and the H-field, Magnetostatics, Demagnetizing field and Magnetic monopole, where in my opinion the context makes the discussion more useful. Also, as it is the article is rather dismissive of magnetic poles, but the magnetic pole model is widely used in permanent magnet applications (see Demagnetizing field). RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Then where to re-direct? Magnetic monopoles or here? F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 21:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
FKLS ( talk · contribs) has reverted this merge. The discussion only lasted a day, so I have re-opened it so more people can comment. RockMagnetist ( talk) 18:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
It should go like this:
where is unit vector pointing from magnetic moment to , and is the distance between those two magnetic dipole moments.
http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf
Ze-aksent ( talk) 06:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Go ahead and try it, see what you get. And how would you arrive at 1/r^4 relation from that equation in the article? By the way, reference given in the article links to document that is missing page 140 where that equation is supposed to be, so what kind of reference is that? Can you point some actual reference for that equation given in the article?
Ze-aksent ( talk) 04:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Where do you see on top? There is not. There is no even any "unit vector" there but only "direction vector". That's not the same thing. And don't you see 1/r^2 in there? So you are telling me this equation in the article comes out as 1/r^4? And there is no any reference for it? Most text books don't have it because barely anyone knows about it, the equation did not exist until 1998. Guys who first derived it should be credited properly, their paper should be the reference for this equation, and that wrong equation given in the articles that has no proper reference should go into rubbish.
Ze-aksent ( talk) 10:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Is this what you mean, Ze-aksent?
Maschen ( talk) 13:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
That's better. Thank you for that, it makes sense now. I don't see irony though, I think that was terrible way to write it. It surely confused me. Not that I'm much familiar with math and different notations, but still the one you wrote I expect would be far more readable and self-explanatory to other people as well:
And this one still even more elegant, and specific having magnetic moments denoted as vectors:
So now having that sorted out the other point still stands, which is that reference given for it does not contain the page where that equation came from. And also, if those people in that paper I gave a link to were the first ones to derive it, then I think their paper deserves to be the reference for this equation.
Ze-aksent ( talk) 14:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I think it's fair you laugh at me. I simply could not make sense of it, and I think if I didn't take that attitude you probably wouldn't be motivated to explain all that as you did. Basically I used arrogance to get a free lesson. Hope you don't mind, I really appreciate it. -- I'd like to see the equation in the article be change to either one you wrote or the one from the paper I gave a link to. And if you would put the equations you wrote in the article then I think magnetic moments should be denoted as vectors. By the way, I don't know how to add references, tried once and screwed some things, not really that much motivated about it to learn it. Anyway, thanks again! Cheers.
Ze-aksent ( talk) 15:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
<ref>
...(insert ref here)...</ref>
. Its good to use the template {{
citebook}}, {{
citejournal}} or similar (they are link from these templates), and just fill the parameters in with the information provided. See
Wikipedia:Citing sources for fuller descriptions, if not already.That's fine RockMagnetist. Although that section is deleted, just in case it's reinstated, or used elsewhere, I thought to let the editors of this article know that I colourized and redrew File:Dipoledipole.svg to this;
Nice trim though! Thanks, Maschen ( talk) 17:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Great. Thank you RockMagnetist, that makes me happy, and I think it will be more readable for other people as well. If for nothing else then it makes obvious it is 1/r^4 relation and not something else. -- As for vector notation, I don't think bold is very good way, especially if the whole equation ends up in bold. And while it certainly is not an issue, I would also put all the multiplicands before brackets rather than behind, like this:
Ze-aksent ( talk) 22:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure glad it turned out that way and that I could be of some help while not really understanding much of it. Funny. Now, there is that other article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dipole ...it still has the old equation. It makes me wonder if such redundancy of the same material across different articles is a good thing, since if you don't synchronize some change and modify all the articles that deal with the subject some articles might end up to contradicting others. In any case I'll leave all that to you and other experienced Wikipedia editors. I got the lesson I was after and I'm happy if it also makes that part of this article more clear for everyone. Good-bye!
Ze-aksent ( talk) 01:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
One suggestion: move the section Effects of an external magnetic field on a magnetic moment into the Magnetic dipoles section, so that the units and Gyromagnetic effect (more useful/informative to reader) come before the formal maths (useful but not for all readers)? Maschen ( talk) 18:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Since the page on magnetic poles was merged here, the hyperlink on "pole strength" redirects back to the same page. Maybe a few lines need to be added to clarify whether pole strength is defined in terms of the dipole moment or the dipole moment in terms of the pole strength. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KitchiRUs ( talk • contribs) 13:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Your point is correct, the definition as stated is outdated by about 100 years.
The magnetic moment is now defined in terms of how magnets are affected by magnetic fields, rather than the other way around.
This is in contrast to the electric dipole term of the multipole expansion, which is defined based on a distance approximation to the field.
In practice, of course, magnetic moments can be measured either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwkeohane ( talk • contribs) 22:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
can anyone talk about the angular momentum for the current loop case? Jackzhp ( talk) 04:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |