Talk:Faraday's law of induction

message: Ok, I am fairly new to physics and I dont understand everything about this article, but I have the impression that in chapter "Faraday's law", subchapter "Quantitative", the paragraph part " B·dA is a vector dot product (the infinitesimal amount of magnetic flux through the infinitesimal area element dA)" should probably rewritten in a way that would reflect the contribution of angle θ between the surface area and the direction of magnetic flux like " B·dA·cosθ is a vector dot product (the infinitesimal amount of magnetic flux through the infinitesimal area element dA multiplied by cosθ, where θ is the angle between the vertical to the area element dA and the direction of the magnetic field in that area", or at least imply that the concept of cosθ is integrated in the notion of surface element dA.
Could someone more expert than me take a look at it?
2A02:587:4511:2200:71DC:846:1E07:ADC (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Bolded quantities are vectors, so B • dA conveys all of that already. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I had suspected something like that, but it's nice to clarify it for the non-experts. Anyway, thanks for the answer.   2A02:587:4511:2200:7DFB:B05C:1AC6:4256 (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, clarification could happen. We might need to create template to explain the notation so that could be re-used in articles. Bouncing ball#Forces during flight and effect on motion explains the notation (take a look at the article, to see if the notation is clear to you), since this is often encountered by people unused to seeing vectors. Faraday's law of induction isn't really an introduction topic, so you ought to be familiar with vectors by the time you encounter it. But it's good to think about people who would come with a trades background (e.g. car mechanics), rather than academic background. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on Faraday's law 

message: The article states the flux changes dramatically when the current follows the red lines. But there is hardly an emf. Conclusion: the current doesn't follow the red lines. Madyno (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silver plates experiment 

message: Hi everyone, I'm reading through the section where a left-hand rule is given to compute emf. It states that, aligning the left hand fingers with the loop, the thumb indicates the normal to the surface. Then if the variation of flux is positive, the emf follows the fingers (and the opposite if the variation of flux is negative): ok.
This first step, I believe, is misleading: the normal of a surface enclosed by a path is given by the right hand rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-hand_rule)
If we use the right hand rule to compute the normal then the direction of emf becomes opposite to the fingers, which is correct.
To keep using the left-hand rule in the text, I think it should be mentioned that the thumb is the direction opposite to the normal, thus embedding the sign "-" of Faraday's law. Then the rest of the text is correct. But the figure needs to be remade, as it still shows the normal aligning with the thumb.
What do you think? OOTeSkew (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rule of left hand 

message: The first equation under "Faraday's law" (in "Mathematical statement") uses two integrals to describe integration over a surface. This is the only use of this notation throughout the article: Every other occurrence of integration over a surface uses a single integral sign. In my opinion, the double integral notation is better (as it is more explicit), but in either case the notation should be consistent. Proxagonal (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in notation throughout the article