Comments on: Vector Calculus: Understanding Flux http://betterexplained.com/articles/flux/ Learning shouldn't hurt. Let's share the insights that made difficult ideas click. Sat, 7 Nov 2009 23:27:48 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Kalid http://betterexplained.com/articles/flux/#comment-252123 Kalid Tue, 08 Sep 2009 21:56:38 +0000 http://betterexplained.com/articles/vector-calculus-understanding-flux/#comment-252123 @Wendy: You're more than welcome, really glad it helped! I like Feynman, I hadn't heard that quote -- there are so many things that we know on a surface level but don't understand. Every day I'm seeing more things which I thought I "knew" :). Thanks for writing. @Wendy: You’re more than welcome, really glad it helped! I like Feynman, I hadn’t heard that quote — there are so many things that we know on a surface level but don’t understand. Every day I’m seeing more things which I thought I “knew” :) . Thanks for writing.

]]> By: Wendy http://betterexplained.com/articles/flux/#comment-251967 Wendy Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:56:57 +0000 http://betterexplained.com/articles/vector-calculus-understanding-flux/#comment-251967 Thank you for this explanation. I am taking bioelectrics several years after calc 3 and was looking for a refresher. This is better than my calc 3 book. Feynman once said about some classmates pondering the mysteries of a French curve, "they didn't even know what they knew." Thanks for helping people know what they know. Thank you for this explanation. I am taking bioelectrics several years after calc 3 and was looking for a refresher. This is better than my calc 3 book.

Feynman once said about some classmates pondering the mysteries of a French curve, “they didn’t even know what they knew.” Thanks for helping people know what they know.

]]> By: Kalid http://betterexplained.com/articles/flux/#comment-249459 Kalid Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:56:25 +0000 http://betterexplained.com/articles/vector-calculus-understanding-flux/#comment-249459 @aaryan: Thanks for the comments -- 1) Yes, in both cases (bananas and dollars) the intent for the analogy is for both types of flux to be "good". So I mean to say that bigger is better in both cases. 2) Good question -- I might need to go back and clarify. Flux is defined as the total impact of the field over the entire surface, and not a "piece by piece" impact. The unit is Force * Area, so you'd have to multiply out the units for whatever force and area represent in your particular situation. In some cases, the "Force" will represent a velocity (m/s), work done, or an amount of something passing through a single point (bananas per second, through this exact point). I'll need to clarify but flux represents a "multiplication" of force across a certain area. The units of that multiplication will depend on the problem, but in general flux is the total impact of the force on the entire area (not the impact of the force on one particular point). @aaryan: Thanks for the comments –

1) Yes, in both cases (bananas and dollars) the intent for the analogy is for both types of flux to be “good”. So I mean to say that bigger is better in both cases.

2) Good question — I might need to go back and clarify. Flux is defined as the total impact of the field over the entire surface, and not a “piece by piece” impact.

The unit is Force * Area, so you’d have to multiply out the units for whatever force and area represent in your particular situation. In some cases, the “Force” will represent a velocity (m/s), work done, or an amount of something passing through a single point (bananas per second, through this exact point). I’ll need to clarify but flux represents a “multiplication” of force across a certain area. The units of that multiplication will depend on the problem, but in general flux is the total impact of the force on the entire area (not the impact of the force on one particular point).

]]>