Talk:Method of images

Tangential/Normal?!

"tangential (normal)" What's up with that? —Ben FrantzDale 03:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Method of Images : other examples

I was linked to this page from the page on solutions to the heat equations, and I was originally searching for the method of images for the solution of electric field equations in non-homogenous volume conductors. I might contribute a section on the latter if and when my electromagnetic fields text ever arrives, but the page needs to be expanded to cover the method of images for more than a single example (superconducting magnetism). 149.171.88.37 (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC) C. Eiber

I'm going to add a section on the method of images applied to mass transport in environmental flows. It's an important environmental engineering tool that's used when encountering no-flux boundary conditions. Should be up by the end of this week! Zrokeach (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Finished adding the text and pictures. Citations incoming. Zrokeach (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Citations done! Zrokeach (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

With a perfectly-absorbing boundary, it is not actually the opposite of a perfectly-reflecting boundary (this statement is not true: "The absorption process will be just the opposite of reflection. We should add a mirror symmetry image as an addition sink, and subtract the part of the concentration that has been absorbed."). There's an extra term that accounts for the artificial "sucking" nature of the absorbing boundary. Would appreciate it if somebody corrected this. --Zrokeach (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Years ago someone proposed merging this article into Method of image charges. However, it would be much more logical to merge the latter into this article because the term "method of images" is far more commonly used than "method of image charges." The contents of Method of image charges could easily be incorporated because they provide good examples of applications to electrostatics. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the two pages should certainly be merged, and that "Method of Images" is by far the Common Name, so the main article should be here with with a redirect from Method of image charges. Method of image charges is currently the better and more complete article, so it should be the primary basis for the combined article. David C Bailey (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that the articles need merging, since the method of image charges is a special (physical) application of the method of images. I reorganized this article to be a summary of applications of the method of images with links to more specific articles. —METS501 (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the "method of images" is the more general topic, so if any merging were to occur, the method of image charges should be merged into the method of images. However, that aside, I think it is perfectly fine the way it is now. If the brief overview is not enough for the reader, they can redirect to the separate article for method of image charges, to get a comprehensive discussion of it. But for people not necessarily looking for the method of image charges, for example, for those interested in the last section (mass transport in environmental flows), it is good to have the general page where they can first see all the different applications of the method of images. Zrokeach (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a separate article for mass transport in environmental flows, just like there is for the method of image charges?Zrokeach (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Mathematics of Method of Images

Just added this section the formatting is a little wonky, so I'll play around with it so the images play nice with the article. I could use some citations for the BCs and some of the stuff about the distributions. All of it is easy to prove mathematically though without going to external source material. I'm unsure about Wikipedia's policy on this. Amsanville (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the images worked themselves out, the page is still a little ugly. I'm not a web designer though, so I'm not going to worry about it. If someone has more experience with this, I would appreciate the help. Amsanville (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)