Talk:Quasistatic approximation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Quasistatic approximation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page requires a profound reformatting. The title itself is problematic in electromagnetism, there is not one Quasistatic approximation but at least two. Both Quasistatic electric or Quasistatic magnetic can be shown to be Galinean limits for electromagnetism (see Levy-Leblond Galinean electromagnetism).Henri BONDAR (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sections

I think the subject could be further improved, using sections. For instance one section can deal with Electromagnetism, another with thermodynamics..... A general introduction could be provided and the electromagnetic aspect moved to the corresponding section. --Henri BONDAR (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time retardated potentials and fields

I dont think very appropriate to introduce these complex notions here as they are simplest ways to introduce quasistatic approximations (time constants evaluation, Galilean transformations) so if you have no objection, I planned to remove this idea from this general topic that should remain accessible to the largest panel of readers.--Henri BONDAR (talk) 07:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most common definition of quasistatic in electromagnetics is that the effects occur instantly. In other words, the retardation is zero or c→∞. You need to keep this as the first definition and give it the most prominence. See WP:DUE. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The retarded potentials should probably get a sentence, but I do not think you need to reproduce their equations here. The two specializations should come after a full discussion of the most common definition. On the other hand, you do not have to write that full discussion in order to add the two specializations. Just structure the discussion with the plain old ordinary definition first and then the two specializations, probably in their own subsections. That way someone else can flesh out the description of the most usage of the term quasistatic. If you keep the specializations in their own subsection, you will be far less likely to have conflict with other editors. Constant314 (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your useful help, I'll do my best to give to this page a balanced aspect, I also planned to add a thermodynamic section, but I am a bit busy now. --Henri BONDAR (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]