Talk:Electromagnetic levitation

Merger required
I merged this to electrodynamic levitation. It's known from the work of Professor Laithwaite that this is just the same scheme as virtually any other type of electrodynamic magnetic levitation scheme.

And it's not levitation due to radiation, since the coil isn't arranged as a transmitter aerial, even though it's driven by a radio frequency, it's just an electromagnet. Electromagnets aren't aerials, aerials have to have a specific impedance and are driven at resonance, but this isn't. And it absolutely doesn't work at a distance, it's strictly a near field phenomena, like any other magnetic levitation scheme. If it was radiation then it would work at a distance. It relies on the interaction between the magnetic field generated in the levitated object interacting with the magnetic field in the electromagnet. Magnetic fields like that are near field. The term 'electomagnetic' in the title refers to 'electromagnets' NOT electromagnetic radiation.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 17:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You copy and pasted the content without discussion and without attribution which is in violation of the wikipedia license. Specifically, if you had read the merger guidelines before making the merge you will have been aware of this from "Save the destination page, with an edit summary noting "merged content from article name" (This step is required in order to conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. Do not omit it nor omit the page name.)" Besides it varies from magnetic levitation because of the source, it's an induced magnetic field as opposed to one arising from a permanent or superconducting magnetic material. In the field of levitation it is a different technique, regardless of what you may think of the physical levitation process. I'm not 100% opposed to a merge, however you don't just go ahead and make one without reading the guidleines as to how to perform a merge. Polyamorph (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I might of cared, but then you edit warred, and now I don't.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 19:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:CWW prohibits unattributed copying from one wikipedia article to another. But then I guess you're just living up to your username by not actually reading the policy you are directed to before hitting the undo button. Polyamorph (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Even when I copied material AND linked to this god-foresaken article (which is allowed) you revert warred it away anyway. And that's aside from the fact that your article name is wrong, and description of how it works is wrong, and you've only linked to it from the wrong places. And so your (and I use the term pointedly) article isn't getting any hits, and even if you fixed these things, it still wouldn't. Well done for everything!- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 20:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Electromagnetic levitation is not the same as magnetic levitation. They are both valid techniques and they are both used for various different applications, in the field of condensed matter physics for example a containerless technique. I agree that the levitation articles need cleanup with this respect, I would agree with this content being merged into the main Levitation article for example, since its a very small stub. It can definitely be expanded though, I just haven't got round to it yet. Polyamorph (talk) 07:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've merged to the main Levitation article, attributing accordingly in the edit summary. I agree that the levitation articles are a mess and need significant cleanup and clarification. Polyamorph (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)