User talk:Spinningspark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Flux (disambiguation)[edit]

Re Talk:Flux (disambiguation), it would be much better if the article's lede was just improved and we could use the lede. I tend to mainly edit dabs and computing at the moment. It's not clear to me what you're referring to about an intensive property, or from your wording, intensive viewpoint? Widefox; talk 11:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Widefox: sorry to take so long to come back to you, I've been having computer problems and need to catch up.
  • The flux intensive property is the vector representation. The reason for this is very simple: the vector represents the value of the flux at a single point. This is the very definition of an intensive property.
  • You stated on the talk page that "The second definition is a surface integral". That's not quite correct. The relationship between the vector representation and the scalar representation is that the scalar quantity is a surface integral over the vector field. This integral yields the total flux through a surface, not just at a single point. Since this represents the flux of the whole system/material, it is an extensive property.
  • The author of the article clearly starts off from the vector definition and then derives the scalar quantity from it. In my field (electrical engineering) we start off the other way round. We define electric flux as proportional (in SI units, equal) to the electric charge enclosed by a surface. From this we derive a vector quantity of flux per unit area crossing the surface. We call this quantity flux density rather than just flux.
  • You raised the question of the statement in Principles of Medicinal Chemistry that we can only talk about fluxes of extensive properties, the flux of an intensive property would be meaningless... This does not mean that flux itself has to be an extensive property. The authors say flux of an extensive property. The definition they give for flux is, in fact, an intensive property. All they are saying is that one can, for instance, talk about a flow of mass (extensive), but one can't sensibly talk about a flow of density (intensive). The flow itself can be described both intensively and extensively. SpinningSpark 13:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Undelete please[edit]

Could you please undelete, or move to my draft space, the just-deleted Christopher Freeze article. I put a lot of work into improving it for the deleted version I found, and would like to continue developing it some more, as it was my first article and the guy seems to be notable. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mrg00dbar (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mrg00dbar: I've done this for you. You might get a better response in future if you stop pretending that you are not the original author of the first article. SpinningSpark 22:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
@SpinningSpark: You should really consider the intention of giving all details plus who then is the original author?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iodeaux (talkcontribs) 13:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)