Talk:Electromotive force

message: :The electrical circuit through an electrochemical cell may be described as a series circuit of 5 ingredients. They are (1) The negative plate electronic resistance, (2) The negative plate emf value, (3) The electrolyte ion transport resistance factor, (4) The positive plate emf value, and (5) The positive plate electronic resistance. The functioning of the electrochemical conversion process is, of course affected by environmental factors, like temperature, and by electrochemical conversion inhibiting factors, like material depletion and/or passivation. and the design and construction of electrochemical cell has to minimize the detrimental effect of all these factors.WFPM (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrochemical cell considerations 

message: Electromotive force: The driving force which maintains the flow of current in the circuit is called Electromotive force
It is denoted by E.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.7.148 (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: ...doesn't really make sense.  Current is not defined as electrons and ions.  Current is a flow of electric charge.  The sentence is currently saying "that which tends to cause the flow of electrons to flow."  The common saying that current "flows" is erroneous.  Current does not flow.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudov00 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Electromotive force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320064922/http://ppp.unipv.it:80/Collana/Pages/Libri/Saggi/NuovaVoltiana_PDF/sei.pdf to http://ppp.unipv.it/Collana/Pages/Libri/Saggi/NuovaVoltiana_PDF/sei.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following statement in the article, just above the table of emf for various cells:
"The electromotive force produced by primary (single-use) and secondary (rechargeable) cells is usually of the order of a few volts. The figures quoted below are nominal, because emf varies according to the size of the load and the state of exhaustion of the cell."
is inexplicable. The statement that emf varies with load contradicts the definition of emf, which is potential difference in open circuit, when there is no load. Of course the voltage delivered varies with load. If the internal resistance is r and external resistance is R the cell with emf E will deliver current I = E/(R + r) and the delivered voltage is V = IR = ER/(R+r). V varies with R but E does not.
The statement that E varies with the state of discharge is experimentally correct but it is not explained in the section about the source of emf. This section presents a standard and simple model which predicts that E depends on atomic properties of the atoms and ions participating in the reaction. It is by measuring E that we determine these atomic properties. How can the results depend on the state of discharge of a cell?
Bukovets (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variability of emf 

message: Should we go with the traditional lowercase emf, or all-caps EMF?  An anon capped, claiming "typo", I reverted back to the conventional lowercase, and he reverted back saying that "Common usage in this case is neither correct according to any of the manuals of style nor encyclopedic."  But that's not true; most style guides do use lowercase emf (and older ones e.m.f.) according to this book search. Dicklyon (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: Why is it "emf" when it is "back EMF"? (Or vice versa, why isn't it "back emf"? --Mortense (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, "counter EMF" or "back EMF" is another name for "induced EMF", which is a particular type of EMF, due to electromagnetic induction. Does that answer your question? --Alej27 (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "emf" vs. "EMF" - inconsistent? 

message: How come the sign in the definition of emf in a conservative electric field is different from the sign in the definition of the induced emf? 2001:1470:FF80:5:5539:D087:2C3C:17CA (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sign(s) in definition of emf 

message: Hi user . In the recent edit reversion you said that voltage doesn't have to be a difference. As far as I know, it does. Voltage is also called electric potential difference, not just electric potential; even Wikipedia agrees. Don't you agree? If not, what does "voltage" mean to you? Are you saying that voltage is the same as electric potential? --Alej27 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello.  Voltage is, unfortunately, a vague term that some people use as being equivalent to potential.  However, if you want to replace "votage difference" with "potential difference", that would be fine with me.  Constant314 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I've changed it. I just noticed that this article, before my edit, suggested that voltage was potential difference, in the third paragraph of the lead section, where it reads "the equivalent emf can be measured as the open-circuit potential difference, or voltage, between the two terminals". --Alej27 (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between voltage and voltage difference 

message: As has been noted in anonymous comment above, IEC/ISO has deprecated '"electromotive force" as the standardized term in favor of "source voltage" a few years ago (IEC electropedia). This should be acknowledged in the article in some way. --Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electromotive force vs. source voltage 

message: We have had discussions across several articles in the past.  Here is part of it .  Unfortunately, it doesn't show the conclusion.  Here are the "n-gram results"  showing an overall perponderence of lower case, although recently that has reversed.  Anyway the community consensus was to use lower case.  So, I am reverting it back to lowercase, pending further discussion here. Constant314 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look into the books you'll see the EMF is usually for electromagnetic field, and emf for electromotive force, even recently. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  EMF of emf 

message: The first subject on this talk page says "According to ISO 80000-6:2008 Quantities and Units - Part 6 Electromagnetism: The name “electromotive force“ with the abbreviation EMF and the symbol E is deprecated. See IEC 60050-131, item 131-12-22." In which case it seems to me that this page should be renamed to whatever ISO considers the proper term, and then Electromotive force should simply be a redirect to the properly-named page. EMF isn't a force, so probably shouldn't use the word "force" in it or emF.
But what is the proper name?  When I look up "ISO 80000-6:2008 Quantities and Units - Part 6 Electromagnetism" or "IEC 60050-131" online the only results I get are for a book that I have to pay hundreds of dollars for. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The standardized ISO/IEC names can be found from IEC's Electropedia. In this case Entry 131-12-22. The name is 'source voltage' or 'source tension'. --2A00:1398:4:9003:82E8:2CFF:FEEC:B393 (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  The naming convention for pages on Wikipedia is WP:COMMONNAME.  It is not WP:OFFICIALNAMES and it is certainly not IEC official names.  Until the IEC deprecation of the term actually starts to become widespread, then there is no reason that Wikipedia should be bound by what they say.  There are literally hundreds of books published in the 21st century still using it.  I also find the IEC definition of source voltage troubling.  For instance, the emf of an inductor is zero when there is no current flowing through it.  So an inductor can never have an emf by that definition. Even national standards organisations such as NIST and BSI have not yet felt obliged to purge the term from their publications. SpinningSpark 15:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

text:  And why on earth are the IEC attempting to resurrect the old-fashioned term tension.  After all, tension is a force so has the same semantic problems as force. SpinningSpark 15:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the proper ISO name? 

message: What does it mean when the end of a cell is + or - 105.112.190.215 (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemistry