  ==Equation (77) in Maxwell's 1861 paper and equation (D) in his 1864/65 paper== Fyzixfighter, regarding your reverts, you are probably correct that Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) did a mathematical formulation of Faraday's lines of force. In fact, I do believe that he wrote a paper around about 1847 which is mentioned in the preamble of Maxwell's 1861 paper. But as I have never read it, I am unsure about the precise contents. If you are sure that Lord Kelvin did a full mathematical treatment of Faraday's lines of force, then I am happy to leave mention of that fact in the article. However, you are wrong about the other matter. Maxwell's original eight equations appeared as a concise list in his 1864/65 paper. Most of these equations had also appeared in his 1861 paper but not in a concise list. Equation (77) in his 1861 paper is the same as equation (D) in his 1864/65 paper. That equation is to all intents and purposes the same as the Lorentz force equation. But if you read the paper, you will see that Maxwell was talking about the force on an electric current, whereas the modern day Lorentz force equation applies more particulary to a discrete charged particle. I intend to restore the information about Maxwell's equation (D), but first I'd like to hear the views of some of the other participants.  And to save me going to the cross product article where you have also reverted my edits, I might as well explain that Heaviside's four equations are not taken exactly from Maxwell's original list of eight. In the Heaviside four, there is a partial differential equation which Heaviside always referred to as 'Faraday's law'. That equation does not appear in the list of Maxwell's original eight equations in the 1864/65 paper. In Maxwell's original eight equations, he caters for all aspects of electromagnetic induction using that equation (77)/equation (D) which is mathematically identical to the Lorentz force equation. As regards the idea that Maxwell had 20 original equations, this is based purely on the fact that in the first six, he wrote each of the three cartesian components out separately. So your reverts at cross product were wrong.   