Talk:Magnetomotive force

SI unit is not AT[edit]

If you look closely at the (cited) SI brochure you will see that the SI unit is Ampere. Ampere turn is a colloquial form which should be avoided. If I have no contraddiction I will change the text. --Alkemyst

I think you're right, so I fixed it for you. I hope you don't mind me stealing your thunder. --Heron 16:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SI unit = A (ampere) and MKS unit = At (ampere turn) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.227.182.208 (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO FRAKTUR[edit]

Fraktur, without question, is the most disgusting font to ever use for maths. Its unreadable, unreproductable and destroys the appearance of the equation. Whoever did, please × ∞ NEVER × ∞^∞ use it again. I will obliterate all fraktur notation in physics equations, and replace with mathcal. If it doesn't matter what you call a variable then don't use something so stupid. Thank you. F=q(E+v^B) (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctance is not comparable to resistance![edit]

There is a common misconception that just because V=IR and ${\mathcal {F}}$ =ΦR look the same, the reluctance is understood to be the magnetic counterpart of resistance.

In fact, reluctance is not dissipative. An ideal inductor (pure reluctance) is a storage element. In reality, voltage applied to an inductor results in flux change not flux. And current in the inductor is proportional to the MMF.

(recall $V=N{\frac {d\phi }{dt}}$ )

As a result, what is really happening is that ${\frac {d\phi }{dt}}$ is being integrated the same way that current is integrated in a capacitor. As a reault, the reluctance is a capacitive element and not a resistive element.

See this article and its reference paper for more. Many text books on electrical engineering, Bond graphs and modelling also mention why this is a better way to model (and understand) magnetics.

Abhijit86k (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electromotive Force, emf, relation to Magnetomotive Force not clear[edit]

On the second paragraph, suddenly, the concept of electromotive force is introduced. The relationship between magnetomotive force and the electromotive force is not clear and I can't understand why it has been introduced here. The colon (:) at the end of this sentence gives the sense that the 3 equations following that paragraph are somehow related to electromotive force. I don't know how to fix the write-up but it has to be fixed.

Houmiya (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Hooman[reply]

Needs Much Work[edit]

Starting with definition... "quantity in the equation"?... much of this is not informative at all. Emf has a specific meaning, and not to be confused with mmf. I plan to come back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.132.1 (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]