#562 – Electroboom!

[Jesse Gordon]

Dude, I have supplied plenty of diagrams, if you don't understand them it's not my fault.
Put one of your voltmeters along a green path and the other along a purple path.

For the rest, try to realize that Faraday's law is one of Maxwell's equation and as such the EMF due to a changing magnetic field is not like other forms of emf.

rot E = -dB/dt

becomes (in stationary conditions - meaning we don't move things around)

circulation of E = - d/dt flux of B

Can you compute the circulation of a vector field if I give you the configuration?

Probably not, but you'd have to try me for either of us to know for sure. I already told you I'm no math wiz. And I know you're not either.

I answered yet another of your questions, now it's your turn to answer one of mine.

What voltages would you say each of these 4 volt meters reads in the diagram below?
https://i.postimg.cc/15gbsCmz/20211119-232948.jpg


You can throw all the math at me you want but that's not going to prove that KVL actually fails. To make a convincing argument, you need to either:

A) Show that KVL actually fails in the diagram I have provided or some other loop diagram you may provide which uses resistors and the secondary windings from closed-magnetic-circuit-core transformers. I want to build an actual loop of resistors and transformer secondaries and measure the voltage differences across each element and have it not sum up to zero.

or

B) Admit that KVL would appear to hold perfectly as measured with a volt meter in the diagram I provided.

Once you do one of those things, then you can begin to make your case about why KVL is failing even though it appears according to the volt meter to hold.

But until you connect with reality and either admit it least APPEARS to a volt meter to work on the diagram I have provided, OR show me a configuration that I can actually test with my volt meter and have it not appear to hold, then you're refusing to connect with the observable level of reality.


And I go on and say as I told you months ago "Nobody has an answer."

Dude, I have supplied plenty of diagrams, if you don't understand them it's not my fault.

You have shared lots of wonderful diagrams, it's just that none of them were a diagram showing a loop of elements made of resistors and transformer secondaries which would allow me to add up the measured voltages and see KVL fail.

None of the diagrams you shared were the one I'm asking for.

If you went to the grocery store and asked for milk, and they brought you 50 dozen eggs, so you asked for milk again, and they said "Look! We brought you 50 items! Why aren't you happy?"

Same thing. I ask for a diagram that depicts a loop with resistors and transformer secondaries where I can measure the difference across each element and the sum is not zero.

Seriously, your diagrams are NOT what I'm asking for. Not one of them. Ever.


You can consider me a lost cause if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you couldn't solve the transformer quiz and that you repeatedly refused to answer simple questions and use all sorts of diversionary angles.

If you want to reach people like me, you need to meet them where they are at -- at the level of their volt meter.

In the mean time, we go on to spread the truth that KVL holds when you correctly probe for loops who's size is much smaller than the wavelength of the frequency involved.
More and more people are making videos on the topic, demonstrating Lewin's error and some of them already know way more math than you and me, and the ones that don't know the math aren't going to be helped by your mathematical definition games.

They are going to be influenced by the low-level information about guys like Mehdi and all the other guys taking the practical approach -- because most people identify much more strongly with the practical approach, and won't be helped by you quoting math you don't understand either.

By the way, could YOU  compute the circulation of a vector field if given the configuration? Since you couldn't compute the output voltage of the 100v transformer, I bet not. Or, if you can compute the circulation of a vector field, then I must be able to too since I could solve the transformer quiz and you couldn't.

But I digress.

You're not reaching nearly as many people as you could if you'd just be honest about the simple stuff.

Again, would the sum(V1,V2,V3) = 0 in this circuit here: https://i.postimg.cc/15gbsCmz/20211119-232948.jpg
Would V4 be different than V3?


Thank you.

[thinkfat]

@Sredni
It's no use to throw stuff at Jesse that belongs to your world. He will either ignore it or twist it around until it fits. You will need to find something in his world that can unambiguously be shown to conflict with the reality, which is for him with a volt meter or a scope.

But it might be that he's just too far gone to be saved.

[jesuscf]

@Sredni
It's no use to throw stuff at Jesse that belongs to your world. He will either ignore it or twist it around until it fits. You will need to find something in his world that can unambiguously be shown to conflict with the reality, which is for him with a volt meter or a scope.

But it might be that he's just too far gone to be saved.

Suuure!  Can you please show us your experimental data?

[thinkfat]

But it might be that he's just too far gone to be saved.

Let me elaborate, based on his arrangement:


Jesse believes, and all his measurements confirm it, that:

Voltage is induced locally only where "stuff" is "crossing" the magnetic flux, e.g. in a transformer, only the part of the windings that are "inside" the core contribute to the voltage. Hence only the "2R" resistor acts as a "secondary"

That explains how he gets 0V across the wires and 1/3V across "R". Those are not "inside" the core and so they are no voltage sources.
And since the "2R" resistor for him is a local voltage source, he subtracts the 1V induced EMF from its "ohmic" voltage drop (due to the 1/3R current) and arrives at -1/3V.
The probe wires for the rightmost volt meter are arranged so that, in his world, they don't form a "secondary" because, well, they're not "inside" the core. For him that's the only correct way.
Would I suggest a different path for the probe wires, one that doesn't form a loop around the core, he would reject it because then the wires would necessarily "cross" the inside of the core and form a "secondary" that would compensate the voltage generated in "2R", skewing the measurement.

And guess what: the measurements are "correct" even in my world. Presented with above setup, I will come to the same prediction. Of course I would arrive there without ignoring/violating Maxwell-Faraday, but these mean nothing to Jesse (he believes in a completely distorted version of it).

So for him it all adds up nicely and even makes KVL work. And that's why I likened him to a flatearther: He has made up a framework for himself that is complete and can be proven by observation. Of course Belcher and McDonald would cringe at the sight and Lewin would laugh his arse off.

So, to save Jesse (and the cause), the only way is to disprove experimentally something that must hold in his framework. That's how science has worked forever: find the "purple cow" that must not exist. Bombarding him with "truth" like a Missionary will not work.

[jesuscf]

You will never find the emf along the circuit path, like the lumped EMF Kirchhoff experimented with.

You are so wrong on this one that you are even disagreeing with Lewin and everyone else for that matter!

[Jesse Gordon]

@Sredni
It's no use to throw stuff at Jesse that belongs to your world. He will either ignore it or twist it around until it fits. You will need to find something in his world that can unambiguously be shown to conflict with the reality, which is for him with a volt meter or a scope.

What does belong in his world? He couldn't solve the 10:1 loaded transformer question, like you expertly did. He doesn't seem to be able to solve much of anything, he won't answer questions about reality head on, he avoids them like the plague, he doesn't seem to understand the math that Belcher talks about.

But it might be that he's just too far gone to be saved.

You know it's actually funny you should say that. I have a real life flat earth friend and I've been arguing online with flat earthers for 3 years.

I have been gaslit by the best of them, I am very familiar with all the evasive antics I see performed by the Lewinites in this thread.

In the course of my personal study into the topic, I have actually performed a modified Cavendish experiment and measured gravity, I've used aircraft gyroscopes to measure earth rotation, and I've used surveyor's instruments (which I got off ebay!) to measure earth curve from 8 miles to 105 miles distance, from observer elevations of 50ft to 8900ft, from target heights of 0ft to 14000ft. I did these because flat earthers always say "You don't know that, you're just parroting mainstream lies!" so I tested the claims myself. (BTW, earth is a globe, it does spin, and gravity is real, and I can prove it.)

Do you know what flat earthers say after I show them video evidence of all my observations?

Do you know what the say when they realize the evidence is on my side?

They say "You're too far gone."

If I may say so, since you brought up the subject, talking with Lewinites is in fact very much like talking with flat earthers. Flat earthers have no appreciation of the real testable world. They have their own framework that makes sense to them based on a bunch of misunderstandings of observable reality, because, like lewinites, they absolutely refuse to look at observable reality.

They also refuse to answer questions head-on. They try to avoid the questions.

One of their biggest "proofs of a flat earth" presented by flat earthers is that under certain atmospheric conditions, you can see much farther over water than should be possible on a globe. Of course they don't believe in refraction, and even though they can see drastic refraction evidence in their photos, they still refuse to consider that. Look at this:

Even though there is ample evidence of refraction distorting the apparent vertical position in their own evidence, they still ignore it, JUST LIKE Lewin ignores the very blatant evidence that his volt meter leads are acting as transformer secondary windings and distorting his reading.

Lewin actually made two mistakes in his setup - one was to hook up the second volt meter backwards. If you're really using KVL,you arrange all the volt meters with positive pointing the same way around the circle, for example, positive clock wise or positive counter clockwise.

Lewin had both volt meters with positive up, or positive down. That's why he got a positive voltage on one and a negative voltage on the other. He totally failed KVL right there. Dude, he had a volt meter on backwards! KVL would have failed even on a resistor+battery circuit with that mistake!

His second mistake was to not consider -L(dI/dt) for the loop formed by his volt meter leads and realize that he was measuring the voltage across the resistors -- which, if his volt meters were connected on the correct polarity, would have summed to 0.1v, which is his induced EMF. Had he also accurately probed his winding segments, he would have also have found the -0.1v of induced EMF and KVL would have appeared to hold there too.


As for yourself, I see you almost made a fourth wrong prediction. You were like "are you SURE you don't want to change your analysis?" You thought I was wrong again, but after being proved wrong 3 times in a row because I have a volt meter and I test claims against observable reality, then when you realized that my analysis agreed with observable reality, now you're not even responding to me, you're just calling me "too far gone."

If anyone is too far gone, it is you, because you are unable to say "Hey you know what, yes I was wrong about a bunch of stuff because I really don't know as much as I thought."

But personally, I don't think you're too far gone. You're still learning. After a while you will come to grips with observable reality, you and I will be able to agree that KVL at the very least appears to hold, then we can talk about why it's not actually holding by some specific definition.


The sad part is once we agree on the basics of observable reality then that opens up the path for us to discuss what might actually be going on and the math behind it. But for some reason Lewinites cannot simply say "Hey, you're right, if measured with a volt meter, KVL appears to hold. But here's why it is not actually holding..." But we can never get to that point because Lewinites cannot come to grips with observable reality, for whatever it is.

And that is why I have reason to believe they are wrong about the theoretical angle because if they can't come to grips with the observable reality that is available to anybody with a volt meter, then why should I think they even understand the more complex stuff?

The fact is that there is a lot about the topic that you do not know. But you are learning. Keep up the good work!
There's also a lot I don't know about the topic, especially in the calculus area. I told you I'm no math wiz. We can learn from eachother, I know the real-world level pretty well, and presumably you know the math level pretty well....?

[bsfeechannel]

So which is it? Nature? Or the gurus that write the books and teach the courses?

Nature.

In an engineering degree we test the theories in the lab systematically. One by one. We don't treat the laws of physics as a precept given by some scientific "authority". There's no authority in science, except that of nature.

Why are you bringing up static fields when we're talking about AC transformers?

You don't even know how to ask the right questions and you think you already know more than Lewin.

I said static wire. Not static field. Static in relation to a frame of reference.

But don't feel bad if I am skeptical of your opinion about whether my experiment is wrong

It's not my opinion. You'll find it eventually. But it's a good thing that you are skeptical.

[bdunham7]

KVL at the very least appears to hold, then we can talk about why it's not actually holding by some specific definition.

I don't know if you read anything I posted earlier in this thread, but my only intent was to try to explain that very difference, which in my view is that you have a different "KVLer" notion of 'voltage' from the one presumed by  the "Lewinites".  Sredni refers to this as the 'scalar potential', which may be the commonly accepted term for it.  In the vast majority of circumstances the two definitions seem to coincide, the times when they do not are what is being discussed in this thread.

One of the sticking points for me is the seeming assertion that the 'scalar potential' is a meaningless value that is physically impossible to measure and therefore is not worthy of discussion and is not a valid definition of anything, let alone voltage.  In the simple planar world of the Lewin ring and using voltmeters with conductive wire test leads, that is true and mathematically demonstrable.  Outside of that world, I'm not so sure.  I tried to show some examples of what I meant, but I may not have succeeded in convincing anyone.  Anyhow, good luck.  I'm agnostic on the issue and I generally don't have any trouble measuring stuff.  Unless you go over a few GHz, then I'm out of both equipment and theoretical understanding.

[Jesse Gordon]

But it might be that he's just too far gone to be saved.

Let me elaborate, based on his arrangement:


Jesse believes, and all his measurements confirm it, that:

Voltage is induced locally only where "stuff" is "crossing" the magnetic flux, e.g. in a transformer, only the part of the windings that are "inside" the core contribute to the voltage. Hence only the "2R" resistor acts as a "secondary"

That's how reality presents itself to the volt meter. I set up a ring just like you said. I couldn't find in my junkbox two resistors in a 1:2 resistance ratio, but I found 3 resistors of 51 ohms each, so I literally had 1R on one side, and 2R on the other side, just like you said. I had it super symmetrical, just like you wanted. Here's a picture.
For the picture, I rotated the ring so you could see all 3 resistors, but for the actual test I put the 2R exactly inside the core just like you drew.


That is observable reality. The fact that it takes this many pages of argument for you to realize that means you started out missing a ton of vital relevant information on the topic!

That explains how he gets 0V across the wires and 1/3V across "R". Those are not "inside" the core and so they are no voltage sources.
And since the "2R" resistor for him is a local voltage source, he subtracts the 1V induced EMF from its "ohmic" voltage drop (due to the 1/3R current) and arrives at -1/3V.

I didn't subtract, I measured.

I get 0v across the wires because you have to look at the wire I'm measuring and my volt meter leads as a loop. There is zero dB/dt inside that loop, so the volts is going to be zero.

The probe wires for the rightmost volt meter are arranged so that, in his world, they don't form a "secondary" because, well, they're not "inside" the core. For him that's the only correct way.

Of course. The transformer is a black box with wires coming  out from it. My volt meter is not inside the transformer, why should I model it other than reality?

I know you wanted me to run my volt meter leads through the transformer core as a secondary winding, but you didn't want me to model in that new secondary. When your model and your real circuit are different from each other, not only does KVL fail but all other laws which depend on correct modeling fail as well.

Would I suggest a different path for the probe wires, one that doesn't form a loop around the core, he would reject it because then the wires would necessarily "cross" the inside of the core and form a "secondary" that would compensate the voltage generated in "2R", skewing the measurement.

Yes, you wanted me to run a parallel winding. All I would have measured was IR losses, because two windings following the same path have the same voltage induced across them, as if it was a single fatter wire..

(Which was the same mistake Lewin made: He may have had his volt meter lead attached at the top of the ring, but it ran exactly along the path of the ring until it reached the resistor, where it then turned and went to the scope. He might as well have just attached the scope to the resistor directly, he would have measured the same thing. He was just measuring the voltage drop across the resistor, nothing else, any engineer worth sparks knows that.)

Now in the case of the yellow diagram above, I could have run another secondary winding turn in series with one of my volt meter leads to either add or subtract 1v to the IR loss across 2R, and if I ran it the direction to add the 1v to the -1/3rd V reading, then I would have been left with just the IR voltage loss of 2R which was 2/3rds of the full loop induced voltage. (And I did test this too, and it is correct.)

And guess what: the measurements are "correct" even in my world. Presented with above setup, I will come to the same prediction. Of course I would arrive there without ignoring/violating Maxwell-Faraday, but these mean nothing to Jesse (he believes in a completely distorted version of it).

Acknowledging observable reality does not ignore Maxwell or Faraday.

Observable reality is just what is. However Maxwell and Faraday describe the inner workings is irrelevant to the fact that in the real world a close-magnetic-circuit-cored transformer models as if the entire voltage induced happens at the point that the winding passes through the core.

I never said that's actually how Faraday or Maxwell describe it, or even that is how it is working - I said that in the real world, it models that way. It measures that way.

Why has it taken this long for you to realize that? Once you realize that in the real world, it models this way, then we can have a fascinating discussion about what's going on mathematically.

So for him it all adds up nicely and even makes KVL work. And that's why I likened him to a flatearther: He has made up a framework for himself that is complete and can be proven by observation. Of course Belcher and McDonald would cringe at the sight and Lewin would laugh his arse off.

Belcher and McDonald cringe at Lewin, frankly. Think about it.
McDonald accused Lewin of using diversion and an outdated "law" to create an apparent paradox.
McDonald must have been really cringed out because for a fellow physics professor to actually accuse his colleague IN WRITING like that is pretty huge. There's obviously some level of professional courtesy that should have refrained McDonald, and I'm sure there was some, but he still called Lewin out.

Belcher was more dignified, but he still said that there was a common misconception and that it was incorrect in stating that the volt meter reading was represented in the -∫E.dl, and was wrong in stating that the ∮E.dl=0 for a superconductor.
Those are the misconceptions that Lewin exhibits. So while Dr. Belcher didn't name Lewin, he described Lewin's claims and called them a misconception. Belcher had to have been cringing at Lewin to write that.

If you think Belcher and McDonald cringe at my claims of observable reality, then I suppose you think they cringe also at Mehdi's claims?

Look how Belcher cringes about Mehdi. He says:

I am grateful to Mr. Sadaghdar for a number of discussions about Faraday’s Law and KVL, which have improved my
understanding of both.

He also describes Mehdi's series of experiments as "very nice."

And what does Dr. Belcher say about Lewin? As far as I can tell, he doesn't even name him. His fellow physics professor, and doesn't even say one thing about him. The silent treatment.
At the very least he could have also simply said "I would like to thank my colleague Professor Lewin for his contribution to this fascinating discussion." But he didn't even say that in the writup I have. No, Belcher was cringing at Lewin.

At least he could have said SOMETHING to give Lewin some form of credence. But he said not one thing.

Sorry, I don't think I buy your claim that Dr. Belcher would cringe at seeing me claim that close-magnetic-circuit-cored transformers model and measure as if the entire voltage was produced at the point the winding passed through the core.


I didn't make up any framework. I just used my volt meter, resistors, and transformers to find out what observable reality is. I measured the voltage differences around the loop and summed them up just like KVL says to do, and they summed to zero, just like it said they would.

My level-1 "framework" is what I observe. Above that I do my best to understand what's going on at a theoretical level. Maxwell, Faraday, and Kirchhoff described it elegantly. I have no problem with any of them. While I may not understand all of the math involved in all of the calculations, I understand enough to sort of follow along with Belcher & McDonald, and they both seem to be saying that Lewin's loop is within the range of applicability of Kirchhoff's loop equations.

If you guys actually knew what you were talking about, the opening post would have been like "Yes we know that when correctly probed, KVL appears to hold even in a varying magnetic field. But for reason XYZ it's not actually holding..." (or whatever your "but" is, which I don't know because we've been arguing about observable reality the whole time.)

So, to save Jesse (and the cause), the only way is to disprove experimentally something that must hold in his framework. That's how science has worked forever: find the "purple cow" that must not exist.

Yes! Thank you! I do want the truth, but I need to see it with my own eyes, otherwise it's just me believing popular opinion, like all yall.

My "framework" is just what I observe followed by trying to make sense of observable reality.

I welcome any observable proof that any part of my framework is false. I constantly adjust my framework to adopt any new evidence that comes to me.

Bombarding him with "truth" like a Missionary will not work.

That is very interesting that you should put it that way.

A missionary goes and tries to convince people of this faith.

Are you implying that your "knowledge" of KVL is actually a faith?

[Jesse Gordon]

So which is it? Nature? Or the gurus that write the books and teach the courses?

Nature.

In an engineering degree we test the theories in the lab systematically. One by one. We don't treat the laws of physics as a precept given by some scientific "authority". There's no authority in science, except that of nature.

Why are you bringing up static fields when we're talking about AC transformers?

You don't even know how to ask the right questions and you think you already know more than Lewin.

I said static wire. Not static field. Static in relation to a frame of reference.

But don't feel bad if I am skeptical of your opinion about whether my experiment is wrong

It's not my opinion. You'll find it eventually. But it's a good thing that you are skeptical.

Static in relation to a frame of reference?  You mean not physically moving???

Regarding your earlier statement of:

There can be no electric fields inside a static conductor, except the one to sustain a voltage as a function of its current as per Ohm's law. This is one of the first things we learn in whatever electromagnetism course out there.

I'm not saying that there are electric fields INSIDE a conductor, stationary or otherwise, that we know because the -∫E.dl=0 for a superconductor.
I am talking about the EMF across the ends of a wire according to -L(dI/dt), which Belcher clearly describes as being non-zero in a changing magnetic field even for a superconductor.

That should be the second thing you learned in your electromagnetism course out there.

And wait, why are you talking about whether the conductor is moving or not?

Are you thinking there's a difference between a stationary wire in a dB/dt field, and a moving wire in a stationary and non-uniform B field?

[Sredni]

I had written this post hours ago, before reading Jesse's last rant, and delayed till I had the links and the images, but I did not have to change anything except for a few addition to confirm my deductions.

Jesse believes, and all his measurements confirm it, that:
Voltage is induced locally only where "stuff" is "crossing" the magnetic flux, e.g. in a transformer, only the part of the windings that are "inside" the core contribute to the voltage. Hence only the "2R" resistor acts as a "secondary"

Yes, Jesse is a 'lumper'.
He believes that the core is some sort of magical portal, like a stargate, and when you cross it, when you 'cut through it' with your wires, they magically acquire a voltage, that is there independent of anything else.
But in the case of the infinitely long solenoid, where he cannot find the entrance of the stargate, he is forced to become a 'distributer', because the 'hole' is now the whole space and the magical source of voltage can now be inside the whole length of the conductors and even of the probes. "The probes become the secondary".

Edit: read another subsequent message before posting this and he appears to confirm that he jumps between positions depending on what suits him best at the moment

"However Maxwell and Faraday describe the inner workings is irrelevant to the fact that in the real world a close-magnetic-circuit-cored transformer models as if the entire voltage induced happens at the point that the winding passes through the core."

I have a couple of setups he should try to test his belief with his trusty voltmeter.
But the reason I keep answering him is not to convince him - ironically he is more of a flatearther of the flatearthers he mocks on his channel - but (among other things) to observe the rejection mechanisms when he is cornered.
First he needed to reassure himself with that exercise on the transformer and you can see the false equivalence (reiterated in several messages, including the last one)

Alright, the jury is in! bsfeechannel and Sredni couldn't solve it.  .
...But don't feel bad if I am skeptical of your opinion about whether my experiment is wrong -- you couldn't even solve a loaded transformer voltage question that I eventually solved. 
...He couldn't solve the 10:1 loaded transformer question, like you expertly did. 
...that doesn't change the fact that you couldn't solve the transformer quiz 
...so if someone solved it better than me I know they are better than me, and if they can't solve it then I know they are no better than me

"See, you did not do my high school exercise, therefore you cannot do it and since I can, the only possible conclusion it that I know all of EM better than you. Even if I have no idea how to compute the circulation of a vector field".

Then he is trying to reject all analytical reasoning because he cannot handle the math.

You can throw all the math at me you want but that's not going to prove that KVL actually fails. 

to the point that when asked if 5 = 0 his answer is:

For exceptionally small versions of five and exceptionally large versions of zero, possibly 

So, now all proofs he accepts are those that he himself can do with his limited equipment: a pancake solenoid that has a ton of stray field on the outside (it's basically a multifilar coil), and an EI transformer that will have 'returning legs' on both sides of the ring and nearly no space inside the legs. He also once produced a tiny toroidal core in whose hole he could not fit the probes.
And he rejects experiments that could prove him wrong, like building a long solenoid to confine the field and go all around it or even right above it, or using a transformer with a gap big enough to fit the probes...Like Cardinal Bellarmino refused to look into Galileo's telescope.
If you cannot prove he's wrong using the limited setup he has, then he must be right.

Would it be fair then to say that in the real world, where wires and ferrite/iron cannot exist in the same physical space, that we don't have to worry about our volt meter leads accidentally ending up half way through the cross section of a toroid, and thus in the real world, KVL holds fine 

(Even tho he seems to have changed language: now KVL 'have the appearance of holding' and from one of the latest posts: 'I never said that's actually how Faraday or Maxwell describe it, or even that is how it is working').  So, at least he appears to be right.


But the most interesting thing I have got from him is his lucid analysis of what in the older thread on this topic I called 'scientific populism'.

"In the mean time, we go on to spread the truth that KVL holds when you correctly probe for loops who's size is much smaller than the wavelength of the frequency involved.
More and more people are making videos on the topic, demonstrating Lewin's error and some of them already know way more math than you and me, and the ones that don't know the math aren't going to be helped by your mathematical definition games.
They are going to be influenced by the low-level information about guys like Mehdi and all the other guys taking the practical approach -- because most people identify much more strongly with the practical approach, and won't be helped by you quoting math [...]"

He is 100% right.
This is how politics has always worked: you don't need to tell the truth or correctly solve problems, far from it, you just need to tell your electorate what they want to hear. Make them feel smart, even if they are dumb as rocks, by using their language and indulging their wrong beliefs. They will adore you and they will give you their vote and their money.

Social media have helped transpose this to other fields, unfortunately including science and engineering.
You might think, "in science, wrong beliefs can be proved wrong", but Lewin has shown that no, that is not always the case. And certainly not on youtube, where the mass of ignorant followers steer the herd toward whatever they like best (usually something that the average viewer can understand and relate to).

To make another example that is nowhere near as controversial as Lewin's ring: three years ago, exactly in the same period we were discussing Electroboom's video, Science Asylum made a video on the flow of energy in circuits titled "Energy doesn't flow the way you think" (I noticed today that that video is now called "Circuit energy doesn't flow the way you think")

Science Asylum

source youtube video watch?v=C7tQJ42nGno


He got the direction of the electric field near the wires wrong by nearly 90 degrees (my crystal ball says that's because he saw a figure with the Poynting vector going into a resistive piece of material and assumed it would have been the same in an highly conductive wire forming a circuit with a battery and a far away resistor). In his video he shows energy coming into his circuit from all around space in all directions. It is wrong.
.
Energy flow goes from the battery, is guided by the wires and then 'plunges' into the resistor (there is even a paper by John D. Jackson about the role of surface and interface charge on this). It is nothing fancy as 'energy comes from all around  the universe' that he tried to push on his ignorant audience.
In the comments immediately after the video, among the the mass of fans whose minds had been blown away by such an unexpected (and false) conclusion, somebody had tried to told him that he was getting the directions all wrong - and by nearly 90 degrees - as shown even on wikipedia, and that the field inside the wires is not stronger in the wire than it is outside (as he wrote in the comments). But he kept insisting that the field in the wire is stronger than outside, thereby confirming he has a deeply wrong conception of the direction of the field near the cables, and consequently of the Poynting vector). You could see his erroneous statements had hundreds of thumbs up and the correct critiques just a handful, if any at all.

Fast forward to yesterday, when Veritasium published a video on the same topic (with the slight twist of how the fields propagate when you flip the switch - there was a question on EE Stack Exchange about this a few months ago, and yes it has all to do with surface charges but I am not completely sure Veritasium got it completely right).

Veritasium: The Big Misconception About Electricity  (negative mine)
source youtube video watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY


Veritasium (who actually go to the real experts for his videos) got the directions of the fields right just like the wikipedia image. And what is the comment Science Asylum made to Veritasium video?

"I made a video about this a few years ago and I can assure you that you will be told by viewers that you're wrong (even though you aren't). I'm glad you made the video though. The more of us that cover this topic, the more people we'll be able to reach and educate. "

Read in the replies to Science Asylum comment how people are complimenting him for showing them the truth in that three years prior video (which he never corrected). Despite being dead wrong on the direction of the flow of energy. He tried to defend it in the replies (because someone still pointed that out) saying that he made a direction error





But that direction error is colossal, and change completely the direction of energy flows in his video. Also with zero resistance wires Veritasium directions are perfectly correct, and with resistive copper wire he might be off by a fraction of degree, in the middle of the circuit?.
Science Asylum did not correct the video and now he also writes



He has got it wrong by nearly ninety degrees.
How many points would one get in an exam if they got the direction of fields or forces wrong by nearly 90 degrees? And yet, he maintains he is basically right (yeah, not quite correct either...) and he was wrongly attacked. In the comment section of the video that proves him wrong.

Doublethink.

Moreover, all you can see now is... thumbs up. Both for his wrong video, for his leading comment in his wrong video, and for the comment in Veritasium videos where he is trying to rewrite history. Gaslighting is strong on social media.

We live in an age that mixes Orwell's 1984 with Idiocracy. We are now dealing with "the big dumb brother".
We never went to the Moon, but we found the Reptilians there. Thumbs up.

P.S.
Even worse, I just noticed now, Veritasium gave him his little throbbing heart and commented



The circle is closed.

[Sredni]

You will never find the emf along the circuit path, like the lumped EMF Kirchhoff experimented with.

You are so wrong on this one that you are even disagreeing with Lewin and everyone else for that matter!

Very well. Since Jesse won't do this experiment, let's see if you are willing to do it (I did it).

Are you a toroidal power transformer owner?
You know one those five inches or so big donuts?

[jesuscf]

You will never find the emf along the circuit path, like the lumped EMF Kirchhoff experimented with.

You are so wrong on this one that you are even disagreeing with Lewin and everyone else for that matter!

Very well. Since Jesse won't do this experiment, let's see if you are willing to do it (I did it).

Are you a toroidal power transformer owner?
You know one those five inches or so big donuts?

Diversion and more diversions.  I have a much better idea.  Here, solve this very simple problem.  Please post your complete solution.  I'll give you a day from now, before I post the solution myself.  This problem should look extremely familiar to anybody reading this forum!

A circular wire ring with a radius of 0.2 m has two resistors attached as shown in the figure.  R₁ has a resistance 100Ω and R₂ has a resistance of 900Ω.  The resistance of the wire can be ignored. The time varying magnetic flux density as shown in the figure is given by:

 \$
B(t) = 0.7958 \cdot e^{\frac{{ - t}}{{0.1s}}} _{} T
\$

At t=0, determine the voltages across the resistors V₁ and V₂ (with the polarity as indicated in the figure) and the voltage between nodes A and D (V_AD) which are half a circle apart.

[Sredni]

You will never find the emf along the circuit path, like the lumped EMF Kirchhoff experimented with.

You are so wrong on this one that you are even disagreeing with Lewin and everyone else for that matter!

Very well. Since Jesse won't do this experiment, let's see if you are willing to do it (I did it).

Are you a toroidal power transformer owner?
You know one those five inches or so big donuts?

Diversion and more diversions.  I have a much better idea.  Here, solve this very simple problem.  Please post your complete solution.  I'll give you a day from now, before I post the solution myself.  This problem should look extremely familiar to anybody reading this forum!

A circular wire ring with a radius of 0.2 m has two resistors attached as shown in the figure.  R₁ has a resistance 100Ω and R₂ has a resistance of 900Ω.  The resistance of the wire can be ignored. The time varying magnetic flux density as shown in the figure is given by:

 \$
B(t) = 0.7958 \cdot e^{\frac{{ - t}}{{0.1s}}} _{} T
\$

At t=0, determine the voltages across the resistors V₁ and V₂ (with the polarity as indicated in the figure) and the voltage between nodes A and D (V_AD) which are half a circle apart.

Well, if the field permeates the whole ring the flux is the product of the area of the ring times B which is spatially constant on the whole surface.
Differentiate with respect to t, change sign and you get the EMF. You need to pay attention to signs - what matters is how the flux changes.
Once you know the EMF and its verse (cw or ccwI, you know the current I(t) = EMF(t) / (R1 + R2) with the same verse established for the EMF. It will be exponentially decaying, since the time derivative of a decaying exponential is also a decaying exponential. Then you compute the voltages along the resistor branches by using R * I(t). The sign comes from that of the current and the convention of the sinks.

Fill in the values, if you want. That's a servant job.

Whatever voltage is in the ratio 9:1, like the resistors, and since the current goes down in one branch and up in the other the will appear to have opposite sign.

Happy, now?

Now, do you have a toroidal transformer? Yes or no?

(edit: grammar. It happens when you solve a problem in 40 seconds)

[bdunham7]

voltage between nodes A and D (V_AD) which are half a circle apart.[/b]

As I've stated, the definition of that voltage is the very issue that is not agreed upon.  So if you want a number for an answer, you have to specify your definition or method of measurement.  One definition that might be interesting is the voltage measured by a voltmeter whose leads go in an exact straight line between the points.  You would need a gap or hole in the inductor and core that are providing the magnetic flux, but that may be doable.

[Sredni]

voltage between nodes A and D (V_AD) which are half a circle apart.[/b]

As I've stated, the definition of that voltage is the very issue that is not agreed upon.  So if you want a number for an answer, you have to specify your definition or method of measurement.  One definition that might be interesting is the voltage measured by a voltmeter whose leads go in an exact straight line between the points.  You would need a gap or hole in the inductor and core that are providing the magnetic flux, but that may be doable.

Or one could use the definition of voltage given by the International Electrotechnical Committe IEC 60050
https://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=121-11-27
and specify the path, as I did.

[jesuscf]

You will never find the emf along the circuit path, like the lumped EMF Kirchhoff experimented with.

You are so wrong on this one that you are even disagreeing with Lewin and everyone else for that matter!

Very well. Since Jesse won't do this experiment, let's see if you are willing to do it (I did it).

Are you a toroidal power transformer owner?
You know one those five inches or so big donuts?

Diversion and more diversions.  I have a much better idea.  Here, solve this very simple problem.  Please post your complete solution.  I'll give you a day from now, before I post the solution myself.  This problem should look extremely familiar to anybody reading this forum!

A circular wire ring with a radius of 0.2 m has two resistors attached as shown in the figure.  R₁ has a resistance 100Ω and R₂ has a resistance of 900Ω.  The resistance of the wire can be ignored. The time varying magnetic flux density as shown in the figure is given by:

 \$
B(t) = 0.7958 \cdot e^{\frac{{ - t}}{{0.1s}}} _{} T
\$

At t=0, determine the voltages across the resistors V₁ and V₂ (with the polarity as indicated in the figure) and the voltage between nodes A and D (V_AD) which are half a circle apart.

Well, if the field permeates the whole ring the flux is the product of the area of the ring times B which is spatially constant on the whole surface.
Differentiate with respect to t, change sign and you get the EMF. You need to pay attention to signs - what matters is how the flux changes.
Once you know the EMF and its verse (cw or ccwI, you know the current I(t) = EMF(t) / (R1 + R2) with the same verse established for the EMF. It will be exponentially decaying, since the time derivative of a decaying exponential is also a decaying exponential. Then you compute the voltages along the resistor branches by using R * I(t). The sign comes from that of the current and the convention of the sinks.

Fill in the values, if you want. That's a servant job.

Whatever voltage is in the ratio 9:1, like the resistors, and since the current goes down in one branch and up in the other the will appear to have opposite sign.

Happy, now?

Now, do you have a toroidal transformer? Yes or no?

(edit: grammar. It happens when you solve a problem in 40 seconds)

I don't have a toroidal transformer.

Can you solve for the value of the voltages in volts?  Also, why are you using KVL (EMF(t)-I(t)R1-I(t)R2=0) to get the solution?  Are you one of the 'birds' now?

[bdunham7]

Or one could use the definition of voltage given by the International Electrotechnical Committe IEC 60050
https://www.electropedia.org/iev/iev.nsf/display?openform&ievref=121-11-27
and specify the path, as I did.

Very true, although you could also take the additional step of requiring the path to be one without any net rotational field and thus equal to the second part of that definition you linked.  You could call the first "Lewinvolts", which can have any value you like depending on the path you take, or the second version "Kirchoffvolts" which always have a definite value between two points.  If such a path cannot be found, then the Kirchoffvoltage is undefined.  Or you could mandate that the path always be a straight line, and that can be the "tunnelvolt".

 Remember, I'm not a KVLer, my only goal is to clarify what you guys are arguing about.

[Sredni]

I don't have a toroidal transformer.

How unfortunate.

Can you solve for the value of the voltages in volts?

Of course I can. It's not that difficult differentiate an exponential.
But I am not going to waste my time doing menial task. I gave you the full procedure to compute the solution for any type of (spatially uniform and ortogonal to the disk) B(t) and for any t.
Wanna play data entry employee? Suit yourself.

And, besides, not doing it will give you the same satisfying sensation Jesse experienced. I cannot differentiate A e^k t!!! You must be right on everything, then.

Also, why are you using KVL (EMF(t)-I(t)R1-I(t)R2=0) to get the solution?  Are you one of the 'birds' now?

I am not using KVL. It is Faraday:
-path integral of E.dl  is R1 I(t) + R2 I (t)  (these you can locate on the ring)
-d/dt flux of B is the EMF (this you can't, and if you had a toroidal transformer you could witness it with your eyes)

Faraday says, then

     -path integral of E.dl  == -d/dt flux of

which is

     R1 I(t) + R2 I (t) ==  EMF

Faraday! Exactly because around the loop you will find only what's in the lhs.

[jesuscf]

I don't have a toroidal transformer.

How unfortunate.

Can you solve for the value of the voltages in volts?

Of course I can. It's not that difficult differentiate an exponential.
But I am not going to waste my time doing menial task. I gave you the full procedure to compute the solution for any type of (spatially uniform and ortogonal to the disk) B(t) and for any t.
Wanna play data entry employee? Suit yourself.

And, besides, not doing it will give you the same satisfying sensation Jesse experienced. I cannot differentiate A e^k t!!! You must be right on everything, then.

Also, why are you using KVL (EMF(t)-I(t)R1-I(t)R2=0) to get the solution?  Are you one of the 'birds' now?

I am not using KVL. It is Faraday:
-path integral of E.dl  is R1 I(t) + R2 I (t)  (these you can locate on the ring)
-d/dt flux of B is the EMF (this you can't, and if you had a toroidal transformer you could witness it with your eyes)

Faraday says, then

     -path integral of E.dl  == -d/dt flux of

which is

     R1 I(t) + R2 I (t) ==  EMF

Faraday! Exactly because around the loop you will find only what's in the lhs.

Got it!  You don't know how to use a calculator.  Also, in case you didn't realize it, Faraday's law is one of the many forms you can encounter KVL.  For example, using your same flawed logic, we can argue that a thermocouple circuit is not solved using KVL but the Seebeck effect.  Imagine if we would have to 'name' the solution of every possible circuit based on the nature of its EMF...

[jesuscf]

Fill in the values, if you want. That's a servant job.

On a side note: I have never met an engineer in my life that would say something like that!

[Jesse Gordon]

I had written this post hours ago, before reading Jesse's last rant, and delayed till I had the links and the images, but I did not have to change anything except for a few addition to confirm my deductions.

Jesse believes, and all his measurements confirm it, that:
Voltage is induced locally only where "stuff" is "crossing" the magnetic flux, e.g. in a transformer, only the part of the windings that are "inside" the core contribute to the voltage. Hence only the "2R" resistor acts as a "secondary"

Yes, Jesse is a 'lumper'.
He believes that the core is some sort of magical portal, like a stargate, and when you cross it, when you 'cut through it' with your wires, they magically acquire a voltage, that is there independent of anything else.

Dude, stop misquoting me or trying to stuff words into my mouth.

Can you even read? I've been saying that IT MODELS AND MEASURES as I describe. If you can show voltage being induced across a wire  from being near an ideal toroid transformer when that wire does not pass through said toroid, then show me!

Otherwise, a toroid models and measures just as I described.

But in the case of the infinitely long solenoid, where he cannot find the entrance of the stargate, he is forced to become a 'distributer', because the 'hole' is now the whole space and the magical source of voltage can now be inside the whole length of the conductors and even of the probes. "The probes become the secondary".

Since an infinitely long solenoid is a mythical creature, then I can just say that my probe wires do not interfere with the physical space of said solenoid, and I can run my probe wires right through the center of the solenoid and still measure the voltage induced across a fractional portion of the secondary turn, just like I did with the Lewin Clock, and KVL still holds.

Edit: read another subsequent message before posting this and he appears to confirm that he jumps between positions depending on what suits him best at the moment

"However Maxwell and Faraday describe the inner workings is irrelevant to the fact that in the real world a close-magnetic-circuit-cored transformer models as if the entire voltage induced happens at the point that the winding passes through the core."

I have a couple of setups he should try to test his belief with his trusty voltmeter.

GREAT! SHOW ME! That's what I've been asking for going on a year now!

But the reason I keep answering him is not to convince him - ironically he is more of a flatearther of the flatearthers he mocks on his channel - but (among other things) to observe the rejection mechanisms when he is cornered.

Or maybe I'm observing your rejection mechanisms when you're cornered -- which are glaring bob and weave and an utter refusal to come to grips with even the observable part of reality.

If you can't even admit that the output of a closed-magnetic-circuit-core transformer gives every appearance of working with KVL, even though it's glaringly obvious to anyone with a volt meter and such a transformer, then how am I supposed to trust anything else you say?

In fact, how is anybody else supposed to trust anything else you say?

First he needed to reassure himself with that exercise on the transformer and you can see the false equivalence (reiterated in several messages, including the last one)

You act like there's something wrong with doing experiments. Maybe if you did some you wouldn't be so wrong.
Doing experiments is good. It helps you know if you got your theory right or wrong.

Alright, the jury is in! bsfeechannel and Sredni couldn't solve it.  .
...But don't feel bad if I am skeptical of your opinion about whether my experiment is wrong -- you couldn't even solve a loaded transformer voltage question that I eventually solved. 
...He couldn't solve the 10:1 loaded transformer question, like you expertly did. 
...that doesn't change the fact that you couldn't solve the transformer quiz 
...so if someone solved it better than me I know they are better than me, and if they can't solve it then I know they are no better than me

"See, you did not do my high school exercise, therefore you cannot do it and since I can, the only possible conclusion it that I know all of EM better than you. Even if I have no idea how to compute the circulation of a vector field".

Then he is trying to reject all analytical reasoning because he cannot handle the math.

Stop lying about me. I'm not rejecting all analytical reasoning, I'm saying "Dude, get a grip with reality. Admit the undeniable, then let's talk about the math and why you think KVL isn't holding even though it gives every appearance of holding."

But you refuse to deal with reality.

As to the 10:1 transformer quiz, I didn't take that from any book, I made that just for you guys.

It looks to me like you're trying lead us to believe you could have solved it but just didn't want to spend the effort.

I'm not buying that for two reasons: One is that the amount of effort you put in here just replying to me already is HUGE. What's solving one little problem you've been solving since you were 17?

The other reason is you told Thinkfat he was solving it wrong. That tells me you didn't know how to solve it either, else you wouldn't have told him he did it wrong when in fact he did it right.

You can throw all the math at me you want but that's not going to prove that KVL actually fails. 

to the point that when asked if 5 = 0 his answer is:

For exceptionally small versions of five and exceptionally large versions of zero, possibly 

That's a bloody lie and you know it. You asked a bizarre question because 5 obviously does not equal 0. I answered as I did as a joke, and put FIVE laughing-hard emojis, WHICH YOU EDITED OUT to falsely present my partial statement as if I had said it in seriousness.

Furthermore, you also took two lines from TWO DIFFERENT posts and put them one before the other to give a false context to my joke.

That's dirty dude, you must be desperate.

What I really said was:

For exceptionally small versions of five and exceptionally large versions of zero, possibly 

And you actually represented me as having been serious! And the emojis are encoded as Colon Dash D D, so you literally edited them out of my sentence entirely changing the meaning.

That's so low.

So, now all proofs he accepts are those that he himself can do with his limited equipment: a pancake solenoid that has a ton of stray field on the outside (it's basically a multifilar coil), and an EI transformer that will have 'returning legs' on both sides of the ring and nearly no space inside the legs. He also once produced a tiny toroidal core in whose hole he could not fit the probes.

Why do you blather on?

You try to slant everything in such an accusatory tone.

I am working with what I have, I don't get paid to do this, I use what I got. I can't just go buy stuff all the time because you're too lazy and uneducated to do the experiments yourself.

If you think there's a different experiment that will "show me the light" then by all means tell me about it!

I don't mind building a long solenoid. Obviously it can't be infinitely long, but how long does it need to be? Would 10 feet long be long enough? I got magnet wire. I can wind it nicely on a 10ft long PVC plumbing pipe. I can even space the wire 0.1 inches between turns and drill a ring of holes around the pipe before winding it so I can pass my probe wire right through the middle so I can measure the voltage across fractional sections of a turn of a secondary, like I did with my Lewin Clock.

And he rejects experiments that could prove him wrong, like building a long solenoid to confine the field and go all around it or even right above it, or using a transformer with a gap big enough to fit the probes...

Now you're just whining. I've put out significant effort to personally verify observable reality. I've put out effort to show my observations. What've you done?

Besides, I don't remember anyone asking me to build a longer solenoid.

Are you saying that would solve the problem for me? I don't mind building a longer solenoid, although obviously it cannot be infinitely long. Just how long does it need to be to satisfy you?

If you cannot prove he's wrong using the limited setup he has, then he must be right.

Stop the BS dude. You're grabbing at straws.

I've done the experiments I did because I thought that was a good way to test observable reality.

And I've also been asking for a year for a working example that showed I was wrong. It's not my fault if so far nobody has such an example for me to try out.

And by the way, I'm not the only one who can do experiments either - if YOU think you have an experiment that will prove your point, you could either ask someone else to do it or do it yourself.

Would it be fair then to say that in the real world, where wires and ferrite/iron cannot exist in the same physical space, that we don't have to worry about our volt meter leads accidentally ending up half way through the cross section of a toroid, and thus in the real world, KVL holds fine 

(Even tho he seems to have changed language: now KVL 'have the appearance of holding' and from one of the latest posts: 'I never said that's actually how Faraday or Maxwell describe it, or even that is how it is working').  So, at least he appears to be right.

Look bud, to me, it seems like KVL works in the cases I've described. I set up the experiment, I used the volt meter. I observed observable reality.

But you seem absolutely unwilling to admit that KVL holds when using the output windings of closed-magnetic-circuit-core transformers.

So I'm trying to meet you half way and say "Can you at least agree that KVL appears to work in this case.." Then we can talk about why you think it's not actually working.

But you even refuse to admit that KVL so much as appears to be working in said configuration.

You really painted yourself into a corner. Regarding this diagram below:
https://i.postimg.cc/fTgyDNp0/20211119-030105.jpg
Regarding diagram above, you said that V2 would work with KVL, but V1 wouldn't. But you also said they are functionally identical.

So you've got yourself in a pickle where even though the two configurations are functionally identical, somehow the voltages will sum to zero in one case but not in the other.

But the most interesting thing I have got from him is his lucid analysis of what in the older thread on this topic I called 'scientific populism'.

"In the mean time, we go on to spread the truth that KVL holds when you correctly probe for loops who's size is much smaller than the wavelength of the frequency involved.
More and more people are making videos on the topic, demonstrating Lewin's error and some of them already know way more math than you and me, and the ones that don't know the math aren't going to be helped by your mathematical definition games.
They are going to be influenced by the low-level information about guys like Mehdi and all the other guys taking the practical approach -- because most people identify much more strongly with the practical approach, and won't be helped by you quoting math [...]"

He is 100% right.
This is how politics has always worked: you don't need to tell the truth or correctly solve problems, far from it, you just need to tell your electorate what they want to hear. Make them feel smart, even if they are dumb as rocks, by using their language and indulging their wrong beliefs. They will adore you and they will give you their vote and their money.

And how do we know that you're not just telling your electorate what they want to hear like any good politician worth his salt?

Like I said before, if people like you want people like me to see you as anything other than a religious zealot for your Lewin belief, then you need to meet them at a level they understand and be willing to answer questions head on and be willing to admit to observable reality.

If you duck and dodge every question and refuse to admit things that are plainly observable, they are gonna think you're a quack.

It's up to you of course, but with the amount of effort you put in, I'd think you'd want good results.

But when we see you bobbing and weaving and avoiding questions  and literally refusing to admit to that which we can observe with our own volt meters, we're gonna think you don't know what you're talking about.

Another thing you can do to help people think you're honest and sincere is do some of the challenges they offer you.

Saying you're not going to do their home work is like the biggest copout ever. It raises red flags all over, it tells people that you probably don't know what you're talking about.

"I could but I'm not gonna."

Yeah, no you can't. If you expect people to believe you're honest sincere and know your stuff, you need to be willing to show them that you know your stuff.

And you don't know your stuff. And you know you don't know it, which is why you're so wary of answering questions.

Look, why can't you agree that in the case of a loop composed of resistors and closed-magnetic-circuit-core transformer secondary windings, KVL APPEARS to hold as measured with a volt meter. Why not just admit it?

Then we can go on to talk about why you think KVL isn't ACTUALLY holding even though it appears to be.

The fact is, even if KVL doesn't hold but only appears to, we wouldn't have had such a long conversation, you would have been like "So yeah, it appears to hold, but it's not holding because XYZ..."

How about it? Can you admit the obvious that everyone else can see? KVL at the very least appears to hold in resistor/transformer-secondary winding loops as described above.

Why not admit it?

[Jesse Gordon]

You will never find the emf along the circuit path, like the lumped EMF Kirchhoff experimented with.

You are so wrong on this one that you are even disagreeing with Lewin and everyone else for that matter!

Very well. Since Jesse won't do this experiment, let's see if you are willing to do it (I did it).

Are you a toroidal power transformer owner?
You know one those five inches or so big donuts?

What experiment was it that I wouldn't do again? The only thing I remember refusing to do was to put a secondary winding in series with one of my volt meters because you would not let me account for it in my model.

Hey, You think you can solve the measured voltage using MaxEQ on my lewin clock if I attache my probes to exactly the top and exactly the bottom?

I can tell you the exact total loop induced voltage, and the exact clock position in degrees relative to the resistors, and can you calculate the voltage I will measure on my probes?
(I will not be using my clock's hands, I will be using clip leads clipped to the edge of the copper foil trace.

The catch is I'm not going to tell you what exact path my lead wires take between the clock face and the volt meter.

So MaxEQ will fail too.

Actually, that's a good idea for a future video. I can set up and calculate the predicted voltage using MaxEQ for a false position of the probe leads and then declare that MaxEQ fails too! MaxEQ is for the birds!

I can be like "Hallo hallo hallo! Today I am going to show you something so amazing that you will be telling your great great great grandchildren about it!"
I can even pin a stale fried egg or doughnut to my shirt pocket and wear a clown hat and it would be a lot of fun.

But look, my point to this is that with bad probing or inaccurate modeling, all of reality whether it's KVL or MaxEQ or Physics or Math or anything - everything fails when false assumptions are taken at the foundational level.

Except maybe in poetry and music, I think anything goes there.

Are there cases that are somewheres near impossible to probe accurately? Of course.
Are there other cases that are just difficult to probe? Of course.

But there's also cases which can be unambiguously probed and readily considered a black-box voltage source (or drop) for the sake of KVL, like resistors, solar cells, peltier junctions, and yes, even the outputs of closed-magnetic-circuit-core transformers.

Why not admit it?

[Sredni]

Why induction EMF is special...

in case you didn't realize it, Faraday's law is one of the many forms you can encounter KVL. 

No. Faraday's law is a fundamental law of nature, that expresses a fundamental property of the electromagnetic field. It tells you that a changing magnetic field is associated with a curling electric field. There is a reason it is one of four Maxwell's equations, the pillars of ALL classical electrodynamics.

...and why you cannot locate it in the closed circuit

For example, using your same flawed logic, we can argue that a thermocouple circuit is not solved using KVL but the Seebeck effect.  Imagine if we would have to 'name' the solution of every possible circuit based on the nature of its EMF...

You've got it all backwards.

The other sources of EMF lie along the path ("auf dem Wege", remember?), and as such are taken care of by the circulation of E.dl - which is the path integral extended to the whole circuit - that is on the left-hand side. The only form of EMF that falls into the right-hand side is - you guessed it - electromagnetic induction. It's a special one because it is a manifestation of a property of the electromagnetic field and it has its own Maxwell equation, and this is not the first time I wrote that in this thread.

• When the magnetic components can be lumped, we can make - with a mathematical trick (take the term from the right side and move it to the left side by changing the sign) - them appear in the form of path integral as a piece of the circulation of E (I have explained how to do that, as well). You know, when instead of following the filament you consider the jump at the terminals (as explained by Hayt, which you quote but seem not to understand)?
• But when the magnetic 'component' cannot be lumped - i.e. it is unlumpable as the Romer-Lewin ring - you are stuck with the term on the right hand side without possibility to make it appear as part of the circulation of E, BECAUSE THE PATH INTEGRAL ON THE LEFT IS ALREADY COMPLETE AND THERE IS NOWHERE TO FIT THAT TERM. There is no jump at the terminals because the ring is not... a part (that can be made external) to the ring. [note]
  

When the CIRCUIT PATH ITSELF runs around a variable flux region, you cannot hide it inside a component accessible through its terminals, because IT IS YOUR FRIGGIN' CIRCUIT PATH, not a part of it. The circuit is unlumpable and you are stuck with Faraday's law. If you mathematically bring the rhs on the lhs, you cannot make it appear as some contribution on the loop ("auf dem Wege", in case you already forgot) for the circulation of E. It is invisible. All you can see are the contribution to the path integral: the drops at the resistors, the boosts at the batteries, the voltage at the thermocouple, the contribute of the solar cell, and of every other component you placed "auf dem Wege", which means 'on the way', along the path. Repetitia juvant, sometimes.

As I said before, it is unfortunate none of you KVLers have a long solenoid or a toroidal transformer because it would have been fun seeing you trying to locate the EMF contribution that's on the right hand side along the circuit path (remember "auf dem Wege"?)


[note] Yes, you can pull the math trick that McDonald uses, by converting the surface integral of B into the path integral of the magnetic vector potential A and then incorporate that into the path integral on the left-hand side. But that will give you the path integral of the conservative electric field Ecoul alone which does not completely describe the system (only half of it, so to speak).
The conservative PART Ecoul of the electric field E admits an electric scalar potential (which obeys what I would call Kirchhoff Scalar Potential Law, so that you KVLers can be happy with a dummy that resembles the high school rule you cannot do without), BUT you have to keep in mind that such potential alone does not completely describe the system. You need to supply the induced electric field Eind (or the vector potential A), that you just subtracted away. Moreover, the difference in scalar potential is not what is measured by a voltmeter, and you can't apply Ohm's law or Joule's heating law using the scalar potential difference alone (in the presence of variable magnetic fields).

[jesuscf]

Why induction EMF is special...

in case you didn't realize it, Faraday's law is one of the many forms you can encounter KVL. 

No. Faraday's law is a fundamental law of nature, that expresses a fundamental property of the electromagnetic field. It tells you that a changing magnetic field is associated with a curling electric field. There is a reason it is one of four Maxwell's equations, the pillars of ALL classical electrodynamics.

...and why you cannot locate it in the closed circuit

For example, using your same flawed logic, we can argue that a thermocouple circuit is not solved using KVL but the Seebeck effect.  Imagine if we would have to 'name' the solution of every possible circuit based on the nature of its EMF...

You've got it all backwards.

The other sources of EMF lie along the path ("auf dem Wege", remember?), and as such are taken care of by the circulation of E.dl - which is the path integral extended to the whole circuit - that is on the left-hand side. The only form of EMF that falls into the right-hand side is - you guessed it - electromagnetic induction. It's a special one because it is a manifestation of a property of the electromagnetic field and it has its own Maxwell equation, and this is not the first time I wrote that in this thread.

• When the magnetic components can be lumped, we can make - with a mathematical trick (take the term from the right side and move it to the left side by changing the sign) - them appear in the form of path integral as a piece of the circulation of E (I have explained how to do that, as well). You know, when instead of following the filament you consider the jump at the terminals (as explained by Hayt, which you quote but seem not to understand)?
• But when the magnetic 'component' cannot be lumped - i.e. it is unlumpable as the Romer-Lewin ring - you are stuck with the term on the right hand side without possibility to make it appear as part of the circulation of E, BECAUSE THE PATH INTEGRAL ON THE LEFT IS ALREADY COMPLETE AND THERE IS NOWHERE TO FIT THAT TERM. There is no jump at the terminals because the ring is not... a part (that can be made external) to the ring. [note]
  

When the CIRCUIT PATH ITSELF runs around a variable flux region, you cannot hide it inside a component accessible through its terminals, because IT IS YOUR FRIGGIN' CIRCUIT PATH, not a part of it. The circuit is unlumpable and you are stuck with Faraday's law. If you mathematically bring the rhs on the lhs, you cannot make it appear as some contribution on the loop ("auf dem Wege", in case you already forgot) for the circulation of E. It is invisible. All you can see are the contribution to the path integral: the drops at the resistors, the boosts at the batteries, the voltage at the thermocouple, the contribute of the solar cell, and of every other component you placed "auf dem Wege", which means 'on the way', along the path. Repetitia juvant, sometimes.

As I said before, it is unfortunate none of you KVLers have a long solenoid or a toroidal transformer because it would have been fun seeing you trying to locate the EMF contribution that's on the right hand side along the circuit path (remember "auf dem Wege"?)


[note] Yes, you can pull the math trick that McDonald uses, by converting the surface integral of B into the path integral of the magnetic vector potential A and then incorporate that into the path integral on the left-hand side. But that will give you the path integral of the conservative electric field Ecoul alone which does not completely describe the system (only half of it, so to speak).
The conservative PART Ecoul of the electric field E admits an electric scalar potential (which obeys what I would call Kirchhoff Scalar Potential Law, so that you KVLers can be happy with a dummy that resembles the high school rule you cannot do without), BUT you have to keep in mind that such potential alone does not completely describe the system. You need to supply the induced electric field Eind (or the vector potential A), that you just subtracted away. Moreover, the difference in scalar potential is not what is measured by a voltmeter, and you can't apply Ohm's law or Joule's heating law using the scalar potential difference alone (in the presence of variable magnetic fields).

Wow, interesting!  Every book I have checked say the induced EMF is lumpable (for example, check the attached figure from Electromagnetics for Engineers by Ulaby).  By the way, when you suggested the solution to the problem I posted, what is the first thing you do?  You lumped the EMF!  At this point whom should we believe, the literature (and experiments) or Sredni?  You should write a paper (or ask one of your servants to write it for you) with your amazing 'discovery' and submit it immediately to the IEEE!

Now, you are imposing a lot of conditions for what and how we have to measure the voltages in the loop.  But those same conditions don't seem to apply when Lewin measured the voltages in his circuit.  Hopefully you can see the massive contradictions you are getting into.