Quantum redactiones paginae "Disputatio:Fluxus oneris electrici" differant
Content deleted Content added
Linea 103:
::::::No, as ''fluxus campi electrici'' and ''fluxus electricus'' do refer to the same concept by ''fluxus''; only, in the first, the flow is only metaphorical as a ''campus electrici'' doesn't go anywhere. Still, it is a 'rate of flow' of the potential, which I presume is the origin of the word.
::::::Electron flow in a wire is a type of ''fluxus electricus'', yes. But if you need to specify exactly electron flow, say ''fluxus'' (or ''flumen'', etc.) ''electronis'', for example. I don't think anyone would distinguish flow of charge from current before the discovery of the electron, which all the sources are. [[Usor:Pantocrator|Pantocrator]] 02:55, 16 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Well that's a begining. No the electric flux is not a rate of flow of potential in any sense; a field is a rate of flow in the sense of being a derivative of a potential; a flux is not. There is no rate involved at all. In fact it is the reverse. See the section of the article that you did not change for the definitions of current (fluctio) and flux(fluxus). One is a derivative the other is an integral!
:::::::So you grant the point that the source you cited in favor of fluxus being current may have instead been referring to an flow of charge rather than a electric current? Does he define precisely that fluxus electricus is dQ/dt (i.e. a rate of flow as opposed to a flow)? Or more likely is he following Franklin in incorrectly believing that electricity is a kind of fluid which can have an excess or deficiency in different objects and thus flows like water between objects? --[[Specialis:Conlationes/24.183.186.151|24.183.186.151]] 03:58, 16 Februarii 2010 (UTC)
| |||