Talk:Quasistatic approximation

Physics Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]