Talk:Torricelli's equation

Does anyone knows what "d" and "d_i" are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.237.106.70 (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Derivation

The original derivation given was far too complicated imo, I have replaced it with a much simpler and cleaner one. Error792 (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite needed

Please see here. It has been suggested that instead of merging with equation of motion, it should be rewritten for historical interest, and in the last resort merged with conservation of energy. A rewrite seems more sensible of course. Maschen (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that perhaps the topic is more of historical interest than current interest; unfortunately, that is not how it is currently written. The "derivation" should be scrapped, and replaced by historical context: how was the equation found? what did Newton have to say about it? Did it enter the vis-viva controversy, and how? (it surely must have!) For these reasons, I don't think it should be merged, but let it await some kind of historical expansion...

Based on personal experience with WP, it may take 5 or 10 years for the desired content to show up. I see no harm in leaving the article as it currently stands, its not getting in the way of anything: its not like every stub has to be merged somewhere.linas (talk) 02:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)