Talk:Magnetomotive force

SI unit is not AT

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)

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)

NO FRAKTUR

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)

Reluctance is not comparable to resistance!

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)

Electromotive Force, emf, relation to Magnetomotive Force not clear

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

Needs Much Work

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)