Jump to content

Talk:Current source density analysis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chetvorno (talk | contribs) at 23:59, 22 October 2019 (The problem is, it was obviously written by a neurologist or medical student who has never studied electromagnetics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconPhysics Stub‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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.
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page seems exceedingly obscure. Am I missing something? Raidfibre

If I could understand the explanation on this page, then I doubt I would have ended up here. It would be helpful if someone could "dumb it down" a bit for us laymen. Jerryjjr (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a horrible article. The problem is it was obviously written by a neurologist or medical student who has never taken an electromagnetics course and is trying to define the concepts using what he learned in electrophysiology courses. His vague analogies, drawings of eyeballs and "visible" and "invisible" boxes show that he never bothered to actually look up the physics. Current sources and sinks are concepts which are precisely defined in electromagnetics, and any 2nd year physics or electrical engineering student could straighten this article out. When I get time, if nobody else has I will take a crack at it. --ChetvornoTALK 23:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]