This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.MeasurementWikipedia:WikiProject MeasurementTemplate:WikiProject MeasurementMeasurement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering articles
This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about
electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the
project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
The page says, "if the current flowing through a loop changes, it will induce a magnetic field." I think this is incorrect. Don't static currents induce magnetic fields? --
Smack (
talk) 05:41, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's not very clear in the article but "a changing current induces a magnetic field" does not exclude "a static current induces a magnetic field" too. In fact, from we see that any current , static or otherwise, not negated by the effects of the (usually negligible) displacement current , will give rise to a non-zero curl of , implying that is non-zero.
Md25 08:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that it's much more than "not very clear". If it had read, 'a magnetic field', then you would have been correct. However, what is the significance of the stipulation of a changing magnetic field, if not the exclusion of a static magnetic field?
P.S. My physics text used 'B' and 'E' for electic and magnetic fields. Do 'H' and 'D' belong to some non-SI system of units? --
Smack (
talk) 04:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I said it's confusing and inconsistent. Most intro classes never need to use H because they don't work in materials, and so call B the magnetic field, but as soon as you're within a material, a physicist would call H the magnetic field (historically because that's what instruments measure). --
Laura Scudder |
Talk20:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)reply
SI multiples
Is the SI multiples table really necessary? It's not as though the SI prefixes apply just to webers, they apply to all SI units; other articles on SI units don't carry this table. The table highlights that milli-, micro-, and nano-weber are the most common multiples used, which may be worth mentioning in the article (perhaps?), but the table as a whole seems superfluous.
90.209.4.167 (
talk)
14:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)reply
Isn't the first sentence wrong? The unit of flux density B is the Tesla, as stated in
magnetic flux density, where it also says one Tesla is one Weber per square meter (1T = 1Wb/m^2). A "flux density of 1 Wb" is incorrect. The sentence should read: "a flux of 1 Wb is 1T*m^2", or more explicitly, " a flux density B through an area of 1m^2 gives a flux of 1Wb". Note also the inconsistency with the lower paragraph on derived units.
El perseguidor (
talk)
17:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)reply
terminology "loop"
"The weber may be defined in terms of Faraday's law, which relates a changing magnetic flux through a loop to the electric field around the loop."
The loop that is being referred to if I understand correctly if just a closed circuit of conductive wire?
in the Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) 2006, table B.8, there is listed a unit pole = 1.256 637 E−07 Wb. I cannot find this unit and description anywhere else.
Ra-raisch (
talk)
15:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Malicious damage
Placing "N = Newton" in the chart of UNITS is malicious damage to the site? Good grief! So its not in the equation above, it is a very important item in physics and some layman at some point might wonder what an "N" is. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
108.36.71.119 (
talk)
19:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I never said your edit was malicious. As I explained in my edit summary, the list of units exists specifically to define the symbols used in the equation
and as such is not a generic list of physical units. I don't want to discourage you from making good faith edits; occasional disagreements with other editors are inevitable and should not be taken personally.
MaxwellMolecule (
talk)
20:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)reply