Talk:Coupling coefficient

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 inductance 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 the article of coupling coefficient and leakage flux. Although it is clear that it is expressed by the formula, 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)

What I think we really need is an article here on this page covering coupling coefficient in general. Coupling coefficient can be defined in a general way, and is widely used in all sorts of transducers, not just electromechanical ones and transformers. As for your claims on its definition, let's see some reliable sources on the subject first and then write from that. That's the way it's done on Wikipedia. As for "necessary to mention that many people misunderstand", no it's not. We don't tell our readers what they are misunderstanding. We just give them the facts. See WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:WEASEL for our policy on this. SpinningSpark 00:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I would like to ask if you think that this description is correct. At the link you indicated, it is said that the inductance ratio of the coupling coefficient is equal to the flux ratio. As for the formula,

σ_P = Φ_P^σ/Φ_M = L_P^σ/L_M

σ_S = Φ_S^σ'/Φ_M = L_S^σ'/L_M

But, it is common sense in the electromagnetism that the flux ratio dynamically fluctuats depending on the load condition. I can show several literature about it. According to his formula, if the inductance ratio is fixedly determined, the magnetic flux ratio is fixedly determined. So this formula is clearly wrong. I care very much about him because I do not want to hurt this editor's pride for peace.118.236.168.22 (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources come first, and then the discussion. I am not seeing the claim you make of the inductance article, please provide an exact quote so I can find it. As for not hurting anyone's feelings, please read WP:OWN. Articles do not belong to anyone. SpinningSpark 16:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If possible we would like to unify discussion here, so you should also refer to it together.

Talk:Leakage_inductance#The concept of "ratio of magnetic flux = inductance ratio" is incorrect

Maybe it will take some time for the conclusion to come out. It is even better if you can help this discussion with your knowledge.　And I have to reflect on my ｓhort temper.121.2.184.184 (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)