Talk:Vacuum permeability

message: Is the commenting on the viability of a source really necessary, in particular, citing a source as a subject of "psuedoscience."  Perhaps this sort of commentary can be relegated to discussion rather than in the article itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.72.122 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing commentary? 

message: I am confused by the statement, "The vacuum permeability μ = μrμ0 is equal to μ0." Taken out of context, the conclusion is that μr = 1. I suppose that the whole nomenclature section is confusing me. Ronstew (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the vacuum, μr = 1, as the relative magnetic permeability of substances is relative to the vacuum. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  μ or μ<sub>0</sub>?

message: I have added a section on the historical reasons that μ0 has the value it does, in the hope that this will help readers understand what μ0 actually is and why it has the value it does. I have also made a couple of small changes elsewhere. The comment on the accuracy of realizing the ampere has been transferred to the article on the ampere. The comment about the vacuum state being a base state has been removed, because it appears to have little obvious relevance to the definition of μ0.  I am of the firm opinion that this article should be about explaining that μ0 is a measurement-system constant with a value decided by convention, and should not confuse readers by trying to discuss properties of the vacuum. By all means discuss the latter in Wikipedia, but put the discussion in an article about the vacuum.   (RGForbes (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Value of ''μ''<sub>0</sub> 

message: Anonymous IP user 129.2.175.87 corrected either a computational error or pure vandalism by a previous anonymous IP editor.  Thanks for doing that. Your talk page does not seem useful for this message so I left it here. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks to the anonymous IP 

message: The factor for the rationalization of the electromagnetic units is 4π, not 2π. The figures of "2" and "2π" are wrong as the section is written "the force per unit length, Fm, that one wire exerts upon the other…": in that context, the correct figures are "1" and "4π". The factor of two comes in because there are two wires, and each exerts a force on the other. This is why the force mentioned in the definition of the ampere is 2 N, and not just 10−7 N. Physchim62 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: More nonsense. Hint: what is the circumference of a circle? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: An the surface area of a sphere? Physchim62 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Physchim, not that I want to sound rude, but you really ought to pick up your EM book and go through the derivations again. Yes there are two wires, but the factor of 2 comes from the integration path.  Talking of the "per wire force" make no sense. The equations are right. I suggest Robert Good's Classical Electromagnetism for a clear and detailed treatment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Heresy! I have to put in a plug for Griffith's text on electrodynamics, he truly is a joy to read.  FellGleaming (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationalization factors

message: There is the statement:
:Maxwell's laws show that speed of light in a vacuum, c0 is related to the magnetic constant and the electric constant (vacuum permittivity)...
Which, as I understand it, is historically incorrect.  As I learned it, after Maxwell came up with the equations he determined that the speed of propagation of EM waves (that is, 1/sqrt(εμ)) was close to the measured speed of light, and therefore considered that light might be an electromagnetic wave.  The current version makes it sound like it was derived the other way around. Gah4 (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and Maxwell 

message: Not that I have any business in this area, but perhaps the format of the units could be standardized in the introductory section which states: "×10−6 H⋅m−1 or N·A−2 or T·m/A or Wb/(A·m)". IE: make the power format or the ratio format consistent rather than having both.
68.228.204.160 (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree--fixed! ^_^  --RProgrammer (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick Fix?