Talk:Hans Christian Ørsted/Archive 1

1806
The year 1806 is used twice, but refering to different times is the life story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.161.195 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-09T03:58:47.
 * I have corrected the first one to 1793, following sourced linked at Hans Christian Ørsted. –Henning Makholm 18:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I have reversed a piece of vandalism (replacement of Johann Wilhelm Ritter with Brooke Renee Twentyman) by 202.27.219.186, who according to his history is a serial vandal (or conceivably her history, but the stuff on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/202.27.219.186 has "smartarse schoolboy" written all over it).

I notice looking at the history page that numerous previous attempts to remove this have been reversed by user Ronhjones - whoever you are, try and be a bit more careful; it's not that difficult to find out which bits are vandalism and which aren't - I managed it and I'm a relative newbie.

BTW how do you report a serial vandal? HairyDan (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You report them to WP:AIV. Gary King  ( talk ) 02:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Late 19th Century?
How can he have made 'advances in science throughout the late 19th century' when he died in 1851? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.60.5 (talk) 07:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because in english 1851 is in the 19th century, 1420 is in the 15th century and we are currently in the 21th century.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century
 * 193.213.39.249 (talk) 09:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he asks about the word late 19th century, when Ørsted didn't reach it. The answer is that the text refers to shaping advances that were made by others in the late 19th, not to making them himself --Cmontero (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC).

Comments
some good information at http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/oersted.htm

Can someone please correct the article - he died in 1851 yet founded the SNU in 1924 - pretty amazing !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.60.61 (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just scrubbed it. Alastairward (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oersted
Should it be noted that in English, the name is often spelled Oersted, with the Ø being replaced with an Oe? I'm not suggesting we change the article name, just noting that in English-language scientific and historical literature, it is quite often spelled this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.131.77 (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That was my first thought too. I've added a note. - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Post-Kantian philosophy
The article states that he shaped post-Kantian philosophy. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on that, but it does have an article on neo-Kantian philosophy. Is that the same thing? 99.9.112.31 (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)NotWillDecker
 * I don't think its the same. "Post-kantian" seems to just be a more general term meaning "after kant", whereas neokantianism is a revival of interest in Kantian philosophy. I'm not sure if Orsted was a neokantian but based on the dates of the movement, I doubt it. It would an interesting addition to the article to find out if he was a supporter or critic of Kant. Danski14(talk) 15:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ørsted also founded DTU
On the 27 Jan 1849 Ørsted also founded 'Den Polytekniske Læreranstalt', which is now The Danish Technical University (DTU). See. This should be included on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunck1 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Info was added under section "Later years". Danski14(talk) 16:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ERRORS!!!!
It has been pointed out to me that there are several errors in the article.

The first mistake, and most serious factual error, is that the discovery was made by accident. That is a fallacious misstatement. Oersted had been searching for some time to find the connection between electricity, actually current or Voltaic electricity, and magnetism. This was due to his belief in the unity of the forces of nature. So his discovery was more along the lines of a proof of a thesis, and not a chance discovery as the article implies.

During a lecture on his search for the connection between electricity and magnetism, it occurred to Oersted to look for the magnetic effect in a different direction relative to the wire, rather than the way he had searched for it before. This was to place the compass needle perpendicular and not parallel to the wire. This change was successful in detecting an effect, that he had not seen before. So the discovery was not an accident. It occurred during the lecture because he had the apparatus already in operation. It is interesting that this insight occurred to him at this time, and it is often at such moments of exposition that new ideas suddenly occur to us.

On the negative side, Oersted erroneously thought that by heating the wire to a bright red color that the effect would be enhanced. This was a mistake and probably made the effect difficult to detect as the current produced was not very great due to the high resistance of the wire.

Oersted thought the magnetic effect was due to an electric conflict between the forces of the positive and negative poles of the battery. This not only produced the magnetic effect but also light.

Aa9gg (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael Faraday
For whatever reason Google decided to honor this man's birthday, it seems sad that there is no link, say in the See also section to the English scientist. Faraday is credited with laying the foundations of electromagnetism. But there is no mention of this in the article, or even acknowledgement that he existed.

The article is blocked - so can someone link Faraday to this page, as I have linked Ørsted to this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.217.25 (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor correction
He discovered that electric current induces a magnetic field, but in the first sentence of the page it just says electric current can induce a magnetic field. Its more than "can", it always does.

So the correction is simply removing "can"

Replace:

Hans Christian Ørsted (often rendered Oersted in English; b. 14 August 1777 in Rudkøbing, Denmark, d. 9 March 1851 in Copenhagen, Denmark) was a physicist and chemist who is most widely known for observing that electric currents can induce magnetic fields, an important aspect of electromagnetism.

with:

Hans Christian Ørsted (often rendered Oersted in English; b. 14 August 1777 in Rudkøbing, Denmark, d. 9 March 1851 in Copenhagen, Denmark) was a physicist and chemist who is most widely known for observing that electric currents induce magnetic fields, an important aspect of electromagnetism.
 * accepted -- thats a more accurate wording as electric currents always create magnetic fields. Danski14(talk) 18:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Two Birthdates?
Oersted was born in 1777, as stated at the beginning of the article, but under "Early Life and Studies" it says 1771. Edit?--Jrobbfed (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * whoops, that was my mistake I made during some somewhat rushed editing earlier. Danski14(talk) 19:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Linked from Google front page
Expect high traffic. Google logo links to a search where wikipedia is the top result. epsalon (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks you :)Jamesofur (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to edit the page to insert a link to Google doodles, but it seems locked. I somewhat object to the word "doodle" linking to the actual artwork, I'd rather have it linked here instead.  Thoughts? 173.8.168.145 (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

While this is cool, it isn't encylopedic information and shouldn't be included here. Roche-Kerr (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed; the fact that Google's logo was changed to honor Oersted's birthday is pretty trivial. Gary King  ( talk ) 06:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. I was going to add it. It made the headline of the Guardian technology blog. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to know what a "Voltaic pile" was and it turns out wikipedia has on article on that too, I was going to edit the article to like to that page, but sadly I'm unable too :'( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.116.100 (talk) 08:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I linked to it.... Its an old type of battery, not something used much anymore. Danski14(talk) 15:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to a page with an image of the Ørstedified Google logo. I agree that it isn't worthy of inclusion in the article text. But what do you think about the idea of having a "Doodled by Google" category that this article could be added to? Or are Google's antics not even worthy of a category? I'd vote for having such a category, since it would not contribute to a list of trivia on the page, and I think there is some significance in Google's logo doodles. The various things that Google has doodled have tended to be scientifically or culturally significant and deserving of recognition. A dedicated WP category would help sustain that recognition. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the overcategorization guidelines, I think such a Google-Doodle category would not fly on the basis of being a non-defining or trivial characteristic. So I withdraw my suggestion to create one. The best route is to link to Google's own compilation from the Google logo page (which already has a link). There have been attempts or proposals to compile a list of doodled logos noted on the Google logo talk page, but they haven't materialized because they go against Google's policy. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The oersted as a unit
Saying that he oersted is a unit of magnetic induction is misleading. The Wikipedia article "Magnetic field" is more appropriate. To me, oersted has been the unit of H while magnetic induction has been associated with the B field and measured in gauss, not oersteds. The H field is a measure of how a current configuration is impressed upon space. The B field is a measure of how the space or medium responds to H. Thus, a small H can produce a much larger B in iron than it can in air or vacuum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.235.142 (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

why is this a most hit article?
Does anyone have any idea why this article was among the most viewed in July 2009? shows that this page was viewed less than Michael Jackson, but more than Woodstock Festival and Les Paul. PDBailey (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, answered my own question PDBailey (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Except it was August 2009. And thanks for finding the answer... was puzzling me too. Rich Farmbrough, 15:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC).