Talk:Electromotive force

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) 

Archives
February 2003 – May 2006 June 2006 – May 2009 June 2009

Electrochemical cell considerations

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)

The Emf potential of the cells active electrochemical material is the quantitative measure of the level of an opposing voltage which would stop the electrochemical material's electrons from moving. Then if that voltage is lowered, the electrons will move through through the connecting circuit in the direction of the lower voltage potential. In rechargeable cells, an increase in back potential will reverse the electrochemical process and restore the electron supplying properties of the cell's negative and positive plate materialsWFPM (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Introduction Should Include More Casual Language

In the introductory section, before the table of contents, there should be 1-2 sentences with language easily understood by a non-Physicist. That section could also include some disclaimer verbiage such as "approximately" or "like...". It would then go on to the more precise introduction and explanation.

I certainly respect the current wording, and that using simpler language would be imprecise. But if you're not a real techie the current introduction is hard to read.

Something like:

"EMF is an electrical property of devices like batteries and motors that is
related to (similar to?) voltage.
There are several different technical definitions of emf.
Even the letters in the abbreviation "e m f" stand for different terms
in some textbooks.  And the letter "F", which usually stands for "force",
doesn't mean the same thing as it usually does in Physics.
Although EMF can be measured in Volts, it doesn't have the same meaning as "voltage"
normally does in electronics.
The actual definitions of emf are rather technical."

My example above uses lots of vague words and is imprecise, so perhaps it's not up to Wikipedia standards, so I'm posting it here instead. Since it's in the introduction, and I think it's clear that it's imprecise, wouldn't that make it OK? Or perhaps somebody can do better while still be as clear? Ttennebkram (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's the way, but I did find a sourced "simple" definition to start with.

The lead sentence since this diff (one of 28 Brews ohare edits of June 24, the day I had to take a break) says "emf is the external work expended per unit of charge to produce an electric potential difference across two open-circuited terminals." I'm not surprised you don't understand it, since it doesn't actually make any sense. And it's sourced to two documents that don't support it; the first says nothing about open-circuited terminals and the second is specifically about a closed loop. I think it doesn't actually take any work to maintain a voltage difference across open-circuited terminals, since no charge motion is required, so the work per unit charge to do that seems to be indeterminate. I know what he was trying to do, but the edit summary "(Revision following discussion on Talk page; see Talk page for details) didn't exactly lead to an explanation of why this. When I came back and saw it I wrote on the talk page here "So you punted on the opening definition, making it an open-circuit definition instead of the loop integral definition? Too hard to find a unifying definition?". But I guess I didn't see just how bad and unsupported it was, as I never did touch it. Time to try to fix it... Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The term "voltage" is introduced without definition in the lead-in, so that its relevance to emf is obscure. I lack the ability to rectify this. Myron (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

...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)

The "Electromotive Force" is that which enters a persons house through his electric power line connection, and causes activity in his connected and turned on electric appliances. Its intensity value is rated in volts and results in a flow of the electric current carrying constituents of the appliances. Its power or Energy rate delivery characteristic is rated in watts (joules/second), which value is integrated over a time period to arrive at the delivered energy value in Watt hours. Note that since the advent of AC power, there is practically no entry of matter through the power line connection into the house, Just the delivery of the electrical EMF and associated electrical power and energy.WFPM (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)