Talk:Coupling coefficient: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Resonant inductive coupling== |
==Resonant inductive coupling== |
||
I have removed the link to [[resonant inductive coupling]]. Firstly, it is describing the coupling between two inductances. That is precisely what the indcutance article is describing at [[Inductance#Coupled inductors and mutual inductance]] so we don't need two links. Secondly, the resonant inductive coupling page completely fails to explain what it does mean by ''couplng coefficient''. Nowhere is there a definition or a usable formula. A lot of stuff about how it's misunderstood, but it never succeeds in getting to what it should have opened with – what it is, rather than what it is not. Thirdly, it gives the range of ''k'' as 0 to 1. Sources (and the inductance article) give the range as ±1. [[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 18:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC) |
I have removed the link to [[resonant inductive coupling]]. Firstly, it is describing the coupling between two inductances. That is precisely what the indcutance article is describing at [[Inductance#Coupled inductors and mutual inductance]] so we don't need two links. Secondly, the resonant inductive coupling page completely fails to explain what it does mean by ''couplng coefficient''. Nowhere is there a definition or a usable formula. A lot of stuff about how it's misunderstood, but it never succeeds in getting to what it should have opened with – what it is, rather than what it is not. Thirdly, it gives the range of ''k'' as 0 to 1. Sources (and the inductance article) give the range as ±1. [[User:Spinningspark|<b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b>]][[User talk:Spinningspark|<b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b>]] 18:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:As my proposal, I think that we should make an article of coupling coefficient and leakage flux. Although it is clear that it is expressed by the equation, it is necessary to mention that many people misunderstand that the coupling coefficient is the effective magnetic flux ratio. I found that there are mistakes in some descriptions. This is due to the fact that the definition of leakage flux in electromagnetism and the definition of leakage flux in magnetism are different. Do you recognize this fact? In some cases, the same technical term |
:As my proposal, I think that we should make an article of coupling coefficient and leakage flux. Although it is clear that it is expressed by the equation, it is necessary to mention that many people misunderstand that the coupling coefficient is the effective magnetic flux ratio. I found that there are mistakes in some descriptions. This is due to the fact that the definition of leakage flux in electromagnetism and the definition of leakage flux in magnetism are different. Do you recognize this fact? In some cases, the same technical term is used in different meanings in different fields of expertise. Leakage flux is a typical example of it. And electromagnetism and magnetism should not be confused. The link which presented by you has a description that confused both fields.[[Special:Contributions/118.236.168.22|118.236.168.22]] ([[User talk:118.236.168.22|talk]]) 22:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 22:53, 7 January 2017
Resonant inductive coupling
I have removed the link to resonant inductive coupling. Firstly, it is describing the coupling between two inductances. That is precisely what the indcutance article is describing at Inductance#Coupled inductors and mutual inductance so we don't need two links. Secondly, the resonant inductive coupling page completely fails to explain what it does mean by couplng coefficient. Nowhere is there a definition or a usable formula. A lot of stuff about how it's misunderstood, but it never succeeds in getting to what it should have opened with – what it is, rather than what it is not. Thirdly, it gives the range of k as 0 to 1. Sources (and the inductance article) give the range as ±1. SpinningSpark 18:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- As my proposal, I think that we should make an article of coupling coefficient and leakage flux. Although it is clear that it is expressed by the equation, it is necessary to mention that many people misunderstand that the coupling coefficient is the effective magnetic flux ratio. I found that there are mistakes in some descriptions. This is due to the fact that the definition of leakage flux in electromagnetism and the definition of leakage flux in magnetism are different. Do you recognize this fact? In some cases, the same technical term is used in different meanings in different fields of expertise. Leakage flux is a typical example of it. And electromagnetism and magnetism should not be confused. The link which presented by you has a description that confused both fields.118.236.168.22 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)