Talk:Flux

Starting a rewrite (July 8 2016)

I started a full rewrite of the article. I cannot say I am really satisfied with the current result, and I would like to apologize for that - I thought I could get it done without using the sandbox, but I saw too big. Do share any opposition to the general philosophy of how the contents are dealt with though, even if the article will badly need a copyedit (but the former version was worse in that respect). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

the previous page was fine. further, your english isn't sufficient to start making huge edits like this. wikipedia is not an editing service. i understand you want to contribute, but i am very suspicious about what motivated this "edit".

@David Eppstein, Michael Hardy, D.Lazard, and Favonian: what do you think of this new "revision"? i find the figure far inferior and less informative than the old one (among other things). also, i find it suspicious because someone from india (User:G41rn8) randomly set the "expert needed" tag, to which someone else from india (User:Tigraan) miraculously answered, deleted a bunch of things and expected us to edit his work.

one glaring, and obvious example of the poor quality of this "revised" page is when you compare the old figure:

F is a flux of the first sort, ∫F·dS is a flux of the second sort (through surface S). dS is the differential vector area element, n is the unit normal to the surface. Left: flux (type 2) is proportional to the component of flux (type 1) that flows normal to the surface. Right: The reduction in flux (type 2) through a surface can be visualized by reduction in F or dS equivalently (resolved into components, θ is angle to normal n). F·dS is the component of flux (type 1) passing though the surface, multiplied by the area of the surface (see dot product). For this reason the units of a type type 2 flux are unit area multiplied by its type 1 equivalent.

to the new one:

Flux lines across a small surface $dA$.

this should have been taken to sandbox and i am going to revert. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Do revert if you want, I agree I should have gone through the sandbox and the end result was meh. However, the former article was far from "fine", and the figure change is a clear net positive in my view (not so much the figure itself, but the incomprehensible caption). Keep in my that "flux" is likely to attract readers who do not even know what a cosine is (unlike, say, Bessel's correction where we can assume readers to have some technical background).

As for the WP:SOCK accusation, maybe a quick look at either my user page ("from India", really?) or my contributions would tell you something. I would appreciate if you retracted that, or alternatively took me to WP:SPI if you stand by your implied accusation. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Leave it as it is right now. I have reviewed both versions and although many of User:Tigraan's edits are good, many are also poor. I would suggest leaving it as it is now, and then (as we normally do in wikipedia) make small edits that other editors can comment on or improve before moving on to another section. This works best for everyone. I think User:Tigraan has already commented that he/she should have done it this way or sandboxed a big project like this, so lesson learned. StarHOG (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for the bad diagram (it was mine). I like the newer one by user:Debenben also, feel free to replace. In the mean time I have fixed my old one with a new caption. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 20:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that File:General flux diagram.svg is more informative. I created the new one for the German article because it fits better with the notation used in the text, i.e.

• in the German article, the surface element is called $\mathrm {d} {\vec {A}}$, (this article uses $\mathrm {d} \mathbf {A}$, the figure shows a scalar quantity $dS$)
• quantities that are not refered to in the text (at the moment $\mathbf {F} _{\parallel },\mathbf {F} _{\perp }$) are not shown in order to keep it simple and avoid confusion.

In case you want to change File:General flux diagram.svg again, keep in mind it is used in other wikis, too.--Debenben (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply. I must have misunderstood completely what the preference in diagrams was, people favored the old one after all. Thanks also for the clarification and heads up Debenben. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 07:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Misleading Sentence Under "Transport Fluxes"

> Also acts as a generalization of heat flux, which is equal to the radiative flux when restricted to the infrared spectrum.

Should read "Also acts as a generalization of heat flux, which is equal to the radiative flux when restricted to electromagnetic radiation" or similar. You should not imply that only infrared transports heat. 174.124.85.209 (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)