Talk:Galvanometer

Tangent galvanometer

It seems to me that Tangent galvanometer refers to the same instrument described here, using a more precise word for the basic instrument, but I'm no physicist. Should the two be merged? William Avery 12:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

A picture in the Tangent galvanometer would help a lot in understanding exactly what that gadget is, but based on the description in that article, it sounds like that's a different device than is being described here. Which leads to the real problem with this article:

The device described in this article is another form of galvanometer more-properly known as a D'Arsonval (sp?) meter. D'Arsonval meters have a fixed magnet and moving coil that is spring-loaded so as to return to its "zero" position. Energizingthe moving coil creates a magnetic force that rotates the coil away from the spring-established zero position.

By comparison, it sounds like a tangent galvanometer has a fixed coil and may depend on the earth's magnetic field as the "return" mechanism (as compared to the spring in the D'Arsonval movement).

This article should probably contain both devices, and make clear the distinction between the two. And there are still other ways of building meter movements, including spring-returned fixed-coil movements, electromagnetic-returned movements, thermal movements, etc.

Atlant 13:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. 'The magnetic needle is free to rotate in the horizontal plane', so we are perturbing a compass. It's odd that Tangent galvanometer isn't linked to this article at all, and there's no link to the 'Tangent law' it mentions, either. (I have some vague recollection of rules involving fingers and thumbs at right angles to each other, like radii and tangents.) By the way, I wonder if I'd be right in thinking that those pretty equations would apply to all galvanometers containing coils, or are they just applicable to Tangent galvanometers?

William Avery 20:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Answering my own question, those equations are about a compass needle in the earth's magnetic field, and won't apply to the D'Arsonval gavlvanometer. William Avery 20:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed See Also section

... because most of what was there is already wikilinked in the article itself. And I don't see why a galvanometer article should have a see also about electrical quackery? I did leave the interwikis that an anon editor deleted. --Janke | Talk 18:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

A Link Is Not Required At This Time

I just came across this article about Galvanometers, and am surprised to see that the discussion still remains open. Someone previously wondered as to whether "those pretty equations would apply to all galvanometers containing coils, or are they just applicable to Tangent galvanometers?" The answer is that it's relative. If the equations contain the value B_h, then only an instrument which is effected by the magnetic field of the earth would require their usage. And yes, all things are effected by the earth's magnetic field, and gravity, but the question has to do with whether that effect is negligible in relationship to the usage.

Someone else referred to the Tangent Galvanometer as being "electrical quackery". Now there's not a lot of detail concerning the TG, but that does not make it fraudulent. My initial interpretation is that the coil forms an electro-magnet, and by its vertical rotation and proximity to the compass, while perpendicular to the horizontal plane, suggests that it might have some basis in scientific fact. If you could use an opposing magnetic field to cancel or divert the position of a compass' needle, you might be able to calculate for the strength of the magnetic field of the earth at that specific longitude and latitude by identifying Theta and the Current used by the coil. Whether the wirewound coil actually needs a non-magnetic core, or air core might be irrelevant to the equations. However, I have neither tried to build one, or have any intention or time to do so.

With that said, it seems to me that the best solution is to not link the two articles together at this particular point in time. There is no provided explanation as to why one might need to use a Tangent Galvanometer, outside of a Physics Lab experiment, and no history which makes reference to its creator. If there is no history and no modern purpose, or even an indication to a modern derivative of the device, it should only be considered valid as a possible, and perhaps plausible experiment in understanding the earth's magnetic field. All of this is to say that there should be no reason to continue with this discussion at this time, and the link should not be included, provided that if more information is later added to the Tangent Galvonmeter which merits a re-opening of the discussion, one should comply. --Theaudiodog 23:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the Unit?

we are doing a science project for 9th grade and our teacher showed us a galvanometer. we obvsered that there were no units on the thing and that is our homework for tonight. any help? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.54.156.245 (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

"Element"

Quote from article: "...Ohm's Law, which states that the voltage across an element is directly proportional to the current through it." Should read metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.74.16 (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Errors Fixed

I fixed some typos and links in the article while reading it. La Alquimista 17:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Uses

I'm wondering whether the linking of websites in the text (rather than as external links) is useful. At present they appear to be promotion for the two companies mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumas 1830 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC) principle: works on the principle of tangentlaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.150.188 (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Weston

Who was Edward Weston? Discuss how Weston was important in turning the D'arsonoval movement into industrial instruments. See [[1]. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

New articles

I started separate articles for :

Vibration galvanometer

Ballistic galvanometer

Astatic galvanometer

I did put a link for those at the bottom of the page. Maybe the Tangent galvanometer should be a separate article as well? This will be more consistent with the present division. Alternatively, all the types of the galvanometers could be under this heading under "Types". I feel that right now there is not enough info here about all other types, and too much about the tangent galvanometer to make it balance. Williamgelbart (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It might have been better to keep adding information on these types to this article, instead of creating so many stubs. It is, in my opinion, a more effective presentation of the material if the reader can compare and contrast the types within one article. It's unlikely any one of these types is going to be explained at such length that it overbalances this article, but if that happens, it can then be spun out into a separate article leaving a summary behind here. I'd recommend merging all those new articles under 'Types' here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But the trend of separate stubs was already started. Right now, in addition to the tangent galvanometer included here, we have the following:

String galvanometer Mirror galvanometer Vibration galvanometer Ballistic galvanometer Astatic galvanometer Thermo Galvanometer

I feel the best person to combine those all will be the original contributor of this section. --Williamgelbart (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC).

• This is a merge discussion relocated from Talk:Mirror galvanometer because Wtshymanski's proposal there didn't seem to be going the way he wanted it to.

Oppose Just more mergitis from Wtshymanski, as ever. His only justification seems to be that we have "too many articles". As these galvanometers are all distinct in application and technology, I see no value to merging them. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Just more anti-Bill-itis. But seriously, just how many mouse clicks do you think it's worth to the reader to find the pathetic scraps of wisdom now found at these articles? Wouldn't it be better to put those two paragraphs each back here and make this article a comprehensive (dare I say "encyclopediac"?) overview of the subject, instead of a collection of parts lists and random column-fillers? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Support I agree. In this article the reader can see how these historical devices compare and relate to each other and fit into the history of electrical measurement. With separate articles there will have to be a good deal of redundant explanation. Their technology is certainly not so different that they won't all benefit by being described together. Describing historical technology in bits and pieces in stub articles, without context, is not the best way to go. --Chetvorno^TALK 06:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Since these were described as variations of the "mirror galvanometer", I'd initially thought they could have been merged there...but our associate indicated this woudl be a better target for the merge. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are ballistic galvos mirror galvos? The point of a ballistic galvo is that it has inertia and mirror galvos dont. Vibration galvos need mass too so they arent mirrors either. This "obvious merge" is nothing of the sort because the current articles arent detailed or clear enough to show the differences. 77.44.89.43 (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's why "ballastic" can't be merged with "mirror". They are all still galvanometers, though, and since there's not enough content in the articles to discern internal operating principles, they might as well be merged here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

"since there's not enough content in the articles"

Read WP:IMPERFECT and WP:SOFIXIT. Otherwise you might as well merge everything to one giant article called Philosophy. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Extreme positions are so much fun, aren't they? I look forward to our impending articles on 2.2 kohm resistor and 2.5 kohm resistor and 2.7 kohm resistor, etc. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your trademark sarcasm merely underlines what a fucking idiot you really are. You might interpret this as incivility. Not so, I am merely pointing out the glaringly obvious. 86.157.171.34 (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, Andy, you know full well that having created the Philosophy super article, that it will then get merged with all the other super articles that he has created into Wikipedia's sole article, The universe. Only then will he be happy (having deleted 99% of the content on the way). 86.157.171.34 (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why all the terror of merges? Getting back to this article...did you have any comments on the proposal to merge the stubs into Galvanometer, as Andy suggested? --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Both merge and don't-merge arguments seem to have merit, but in the absence of consensus, and the stale discussion, I've removed the merge templates from the two incoming proposals (Ballistic galvanometer and Thermo galvanometer).Klbrain (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Johan Jakob Nervander

IEEE reference says Johan Jakob Nervander designed the more- sensitive Tangent galvanometer in 1834 but currently there is no mention of it in the article. Also I noticed that the article Tangent galvanometer was merged with this article. If there exists an independent history of the instrument Tangent galvanometer then I think it is perfectly possible to make that a separate article. The Legend of Zorro 08:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ampère, Galvani, & Volta

I am wondering if this page should include a discussion of Galvanism. The excitement over the Voltaic pile in Europe preceded Ørsted's discovery.

Karxpava (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Mmm, probably not, in my opinion - do we have Galvanism? Preview shows a blue link there. The aim of Wikipedia is to be the world's parts catalog, so a discussion of social issues or why anyone cared about this device is not going to fit here. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That's a rather unhelpful response (and utterly confusing to those who have not come across your brand of sarcasm before). The article already (in the lead) mentions Galvani and the frog galvanoscope. There is a discussion in that article of the Volta/Galvani dispute, and that might be a better place to link to galvanism. SpinningSpark 13:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)