Talk:Magnetic circuit

message: Are there symbols for drawing schematics of magnetic circuits?  — Omegatron 14:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if I get the time I could probably draw something up.  Magnetic circuits are not normally as complicated as electric circuits.  They normally consist of a single loop containing a source of flux (coil or permanent magnet) and a single reluctance. --ChetvornoTALK 21:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schematics? 

message: If we're making analogies to electric circuits, we probably shouldn't use R for both reluctance and resistance on the same page.  The Reluctance article uses S for reluctance, but I don't know if this is in common use elsewhere.  Is it?  We don't want to make up our own terminology unless absolutely necessary. — Omegatron 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reluctance: R or S? 

message: I am proposing merging magnetic reluctance, magnetic complex reluctance,magnetic capacitance, and magnetic capacitivity into this article.  Together they would make an ok start to magnetic circuits; apart they cannot carry their own weight.   Eventually these articles will make great sub-articles to the main page of magnetic circuits;  but eventually is not now.   
Unless someone objects I will probably do the merge myself. TStein (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think magnetic reluctance, magnetic complex reluctance,magnetic capacitance, and magnetic capacitivity should be merged, but I'm not sure if they should be merged into this article.  They could be merged into magnetic reluctance, which may be an important enough concept to stand on it's own, or they could be merged into magnetic permeability.  It seems to me that readers who are just looking for a definition of these widely used electromagnetic quantities shouldn't have to plow through the magnetic circuit article to find them.  --ChetvornoTALK 15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: I am seriously seeing the need for a navigation template for these things. The information right now seems to appear really scattered. Also, there does not seem to be any clear justification for merging all these materials. Separate articles are preferable. The use of navigation template would facilitate transparency to the material. I see no need for this to be approved. As I soon finish working up some of the other articles to maintain consistency, then I will do something about the navigation template.Kmarinas86 (6sin8karma) 04:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template for magnetic circuit articles (and their "electric" analogues) 

message: Just as the poorly-named 'electromotive force' has been renamed 'electromotance' (EMF), the 'magnetomotive force', which is not a force, should be renamed magnetomotance.TAB (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --ChetvornoTALK 19:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetomotance? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Magnetic circuit. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20060309173902/http://www.analogzone.com:80/col_0909.pdf to http://www.analogzone.com/col_0909.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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At the moment we have:
"R is the reluctance [...] in [...] (a unit that is equivalent to turns per henry)."
and 
"P = 1/R [...] Its SI derived unit is the henry (the same as the unit of inductance, although the two concepts are distinct)."
If the unit for R is turns/henry, then the unit for P is henry/turn, and is thus not confused with plain henry.  
Doubtless confusion on this point arises from SI's classification of units for phenomena such as angle and turn as "optional", and by attempting to cover them with the "special unit 1" (as distinct from the number 1). Treating "special 1" as though it's number 1 (and thus droppable) leads to apparent equivalence of incompatible quantities when attempting to perform  dimensional analysis, or, as here, just trying to convey to users the nature of a quantity. 
My suggestion would be to at least provide units for R and P that are consistent, and to choose the option to include "turns" in the units so as to make clear the distinction from units that lack turns, and to allow the units to work in dimensional analysis. Gwideman (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units for Reluctance and Permeance should match 

message: At the moment, the Circuit Laws section is illustrated by a figure which is misleading in itself, and very misleading relative to the narrative it accompanies.
First off, the figure shows a magnetic circuit in which fluxes phi1, phi2...phi5 should all be equal, yet they are represented by different numbers of arrows (lines). Either this is wrong, or these arrows, though labeled as fluxes, are confusingly not intended to represent lines of flux.
Second, the narrative states the analog to Kirchoff's current law, spelling out phi1 + phi2.. = 0. Clearly this does not correspond to the diagram where phi1, phi2... do not all enter a particular node (and don't sum to zero... indeed they are all equal).
In short, it's not clear the intended purpose of the figure, and as it stands, it strongly detracts from the narrative.  Gwideman (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circuit Laws section is profoundly misleading 

message: The edit summary proposing the merge of magnetomotive force here reads "just a definition, not an article".  Well, first of all, many readers look up basic concepts on Wikipedia just to get the definition.  We should not unnecessarily make them plough through another article to find it.  Secondly magnetomotive force is an important parameter, maybe on the same level as magnetic flux so should have its own article, just as electromotive force and electric current have their own pages.  Finally, I am sure the article is capable of being expanded significantly.  William Gilbert (astronomer) could be mentioned just to start off with and I'd like to see more on the history of the term - when it first came into use, how it came to be called a force etc.  When elastance, a rather more obscure parameter, was put up for deletion I thought that it was going to be a dead duck for sure, but with a bit of effort I was able to make this edit. SpinningSpark 18:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with the above. --ChetvornoTALK 21:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Agree TStein (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of magnetomotive force 

message: I have removed the history section from the article which I think is extremely problematic.  The original text read,
Problems include,
* This mostly does not give the history of magnetic circuits per se, just the origin of certain terms
* The text is a pure copypaste from the magnetic reluctance article.  No need to have it repeated here as well causing a maintenance problem
* It is entirely referenced to primary sources and a lot of it is dubious.
** I'm confident that Heaviside/Reluctance is correct but that can sensibly be left to the reluctance article
** Joule/magnetic resistance - 1884 sounds much too late for the priority of this idea and is contradicted by what is said about Rowland
** Bosanguet/mmf is definitely incorrect.  This was Rowland again - see the secondary sources I added to the magnetomotive force article on this: Rowland (1880) v. Bosanquet (1883)
** Rowland/Ohm's law contradicts what the article said earlier (Hopkinson/Ohm's law).  I've retained the Rowland ref but moved it earlier where it can be put in context with Hopkinson. SpinningSpark 12:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: The schematic at the top of the page shows field lines that are not perpendicular to the material at the interface between air and the material.
In my understanding of ferromagnetism, field lines should leave the material with a right angle. Dosettes-beryl (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You can download and edit the image, upload the edited version, and then use it in the article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with the schematic at the top of the page