| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
=====================
The term "EMF" carries the following unfortunate baggage:
1) The quantity it represents is an energy per unit charge,
so why call it a force?
2) Sometimes people use the term as synonymous with voltage, while
other people use it to refer to the non-potential part of the
voltage, to the exclusion of the potential-type voltage.
a) I don't like the concept of such a distinction. Test charges
don't know the difference between one type of electrical field
and another. Such a distinction is inadvisable in elementary
situations (slowly-varying fields) and physically untenable in
more general situations.
b) This is a non-standard use of the word. I don't object to non-
standard usages if people define their terms as they go along,
but it's a real problem if authors throw around non-standard terms
without defining them, and expect readers to divine the meaning.
My recommended solution: I just talk about "voltage". It's easy. It
removes any temptation to talk about "EMF".