Timeline for Relation between field strength and potential?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jan 14, 2013 at 15:57 | history | suggested | jkej | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Changed to negative derivative, as is the convention, clarified the notation (bold vectors etc), and added comment about static/nonstatic fields.
|
| Jan 14, 2013 at 15:42 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 14, 2013 at 15:57 | |||||
| Jan 14, 2013 at 15:22 | comment | added | Will Cross | @CrazyBuddy D'oh! How about this? At any rate, I'm researching TeX and the FAQ before I go too crazy on comments & answers. | |
| Jan 14, 2013 at 15:07 | history | edited | Will Cross | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added clarification that changes in potential should be over short distances to generate large fields.
|
| Jan 14, 2013 at 14:50 | comment | added | Waffle's Crazy Peanut |
Hi Will. Welcome to Physics.SE. Thanks for your answer. As a part of your contribution, please use TeX markups (MathJax) in equations of your answers. If you could spend some time, have a look over here or our FAQ. Feel free to respond to guys who comment (for instance, me) on your posts using @ before the commentator's name :-)
|
|
| Jan 14, 2013 at 14:46 | history | edited | Waffle's Crazy Peanut | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 32 characters in body
|
| Jan 14, 2013 at 14:37 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 14, 2013 at 15:48 | |||||
| Jan 14, 2013 at 14:18 | history | answered | Will Cross | CC BY-SA 3.0 |