![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This page was changed from a redirect to an article following a discussion of a need for such a page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Treatments of the magnetic dipole field. RockMagnetist ( talk) 01:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
RockMagnetist asked what I felt about this article on talk:magnetic field. This is my reponse. First, I like the overall approach for this article, despite the fact that in physics at least it is a little non-standard. It does assume a certain level of sophistication (Calc III and junior level E&M) on the part of the reader. I don't see a reason for a non-technical reader to have much interest in this article, though. I also like the way it comes straight to the point and is parsimonious with words. This article does not need too much work. My main criticism is that I think it jumps too quickly to the magnetic potentials without sufficiently, IMO, motivating how the magnetic moment relates to the magnetic potentials. For that reason, I recommend adding two more sections: a short qualitative description section of the two models of the magnetic moment and a section on the potentials perhaps showing the Poisson's equations that lead to the solutions of A and φ used in the first section of the current article. Good work. TStein ( talk) 20:10, 25 November 2011 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ze-aksent ( talk • contribs) 23:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Here: http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/1998/079537.pdf
These guys say they were the fist ones to derive it, in 1998. They used vector differential and path integral derivation and arrived to the same equation. Ze-aksent ( talk) 04:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
By the way, the existing citation links to document where the relevant page 140 is no available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ze-aksent ( talk • contribs) 06:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Can you show me? -- And do you have citation for that equation in the article? Current reference is missing the page where that equation supposedly came from. Do you have some actual reference?
Ze-aksent ( talk) 04:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, just please give me some actual reference to that equation in the article.
Ze-aksent ( talk) 10:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
The URL for "Permanent Magnet and Electromechanical Devices: Materials, Analysis, and Applications" is http://books.google.com/?id=irsdLnC5SrsC&dq=permanent+magnet+and+electromechanical+devices&printsec=frontcover&q=3.130.
The q= causes the Google book to search for 3.130, which seems to me wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18F:800:C4A1:9D8A:58CB:33FA:F9CE ( talk) 17:23, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Both parts of the field should vary with radius as 1/r^3 (e.g., Jackson eq. 5.56) David s graff ( talk) 20:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Jordi Burguet Castell:. Your edit summary is not strictly correct. One cannot change the system of units in electromagnetic expressions at will. The form of the expressions is different in different systems of units. See Centimetre–gram–second system of units#Derivation of CGS units in electromagnetism. Having said that, I support your removals. When I was a student we were expected to be familiar with four systems of units (FPS, CGS, MKS, SI and several variants) and be able to convert between them. Nowadays, SI can be assumed unless stated otherwise. Spinning Spark 08:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)