Talk:Work (electric field)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical work → Work (electrical) — To correspond with format of all the other science work articles. S B H arris 03:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is a pointless and incorrectly written article

Sorry I did not get around to it before this business of re-naming etc.

I can see no purpose/point in separating "a special" work done by electric force (electric field) from the work done by any force, which is or should be described in the Work (physics) article. The "electrical" article does not demonstrate any special features of electrical work (not that there are any), but it does introduce a number of erroneous statements.

The work done (or work that can be done) by electric field is a basis for explaining the concept of voltage, and there are very good reasons to discuss all details right there, in the Voltage article. So, if any editors feel that Wikipedia must have a separate entry "Work (electrical)", the only sensible approach would be to re-direct it to "Voltage".

I have already discussed some problems of the Voltage article at its talk page. Some of that nonsense is reproduced and amplified here, such as "positive external work to move a positive charge into a region possessing a higher value of voltage" (the author has obviously confused voltage for potential). But here we can find some additional and entirely incomprehensible nonsenses such as "positive and negative regions of field" (can anybody guess what that might mean for a vector field?).

Finally, in the closing paragraphs, the author claims "The electric work which is done by an electric field is independent of the path followed by the carriers of charge. There is no change in the voltage around any closed path...". He is fully unaware of the only challenging task, that of explaining the concept of path-dependent voltage...

I find it difficult to understand why anybody would spend time and effort discussing/re-naming/manipulating the article without noticing the trash quality of its content. And as for the purpose of its existence as an entry separated from the Voltage article, I hope that above illustrations (nonsense as they are) convincingly demonstrate that such separation is pointless.--Ilevanat (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone add http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsWDUqJQcpk&feature=bf_prev&list=SPC2CEECFD938FD494 !

From about 5 minutes in Walter Lewin excellently explains Work in terms of electricity: could anyone with the expertise add this to this page? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsWDUqJQcpk&feature=bf_prev&list=SPC2CEECFD938FD494 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.204.0.223 (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Reading through this article, I find a few things that are just wrong. Someone who knows more on this subject should definitely take a look at this... GoldMiner24 ^Talk 08:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for using this Talk page to alert interested Users to the problem you have found - that "a few things are just wrong." Seeing you have noticed a few things you think are wrong, it is customary to let readers know what they are, or where they are, or what you think is the problem. Dolphin (t) 11:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]