Talk:Cable theory

Untitled

I changed the sentence saying that you can solve the cable equation with difficulty. Actually, equation 14 is only a solution if you can show that the partial derivative with respect to time vanishes, and that happens when you discount the transitory effects

r_l

This article is inconsistened about what [$]r_l[/$] happens to be called. On the top there an image with calls it longitudinal resistence. In the text it's called cytosolic resistence. I think it would be better if it would get a uniform name. I however lack the subject knowledge to decide which name is more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian314 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, $r_{l}$ and $c_{m}$, along with $R_{l}$ and $C_{m}$ are inconsistent with the literature. See Dayan and Abbott chapter 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will.wagstaff (talk • contribs) 06:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

impulse and time constant

I think the part about the timeconstant is confusing as it talks about a nerve impulse. However for such impulses (presumably spikes), the dependence on tau is different.

Speed in the diffusion equation is a diffuse topic, but see for instance Dayan and Abbott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.2.30 (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

possible inaccurate formulation of r_m

The sentence with possible problem is this one:

Here r_m and c_m, as introduced above, are measured per membrane-length unit (per meter (m)). Thus r_m is measured in ohm·meters (Ω·m) and c_m in farads per meter (F/m)

Both are said to be "per meter" but r_m is ohms *multiplied* by meters and c_m is farads divided by meters. Shouldn't it be Ohms *by* meters ?

--ChMeessen (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)