#562 – Electroboom!

[Jesse Gordon]

https://i.postimg.cc/jdJntBXT/20211128-121506.jpg

My question is a simple yes or no question. Either the volt meters will sum to zero or they won't. Or maybe you think they might some days depending on the phase of the moon.

If you place your voltmeters all in the same simply connected region that does not include the variable dB/dt region, then yes of course KVL will work. It's written in the top right corner of the picture I have posted more then a week ago. You still have to understand that?

And you still absolutely refuse to answer a simple yes/sometimes/no question regarding the above diagram.
--snip--
Seriously, what's your best guess about the volt meters in the above diagram? Do you think they would sum to zero? or not? or just sometimes?

Maybe it would help you to visualize real world values. How about 100mV per turn induced emf in the transformer core, and  each resistor is 50 ohms.

Dude, lighten up and just answer the question so we can move on. Say "Yes, No, or Sometimes" and there's always the ever popular "I don't know" if that is your case, but if you don't know then you really don't know do you.

If this was chess, you're acting like you're in check. You're acting like you don't want to make a move because you know it'll put you in a bind you can't get out of.

I'm not asking you to try and follow some twisted mental gymnastics and draw a secret diagram I have in my mind.

I drew a simple real-world diagram which you can test yourself with a real transformer and real volt meter and resistors if you want, or if you already know the answer you can just give the answer.

If you can't do that, there's no way the other stuff you're asking is ever going to make sense.

Will the volt meters sum to zero in the above diagram in a real world test? Yes, Sometimes, No.

Thank you!

This reminds me of when I was a kid. My cousin has this motorcycle - more of a scooter - that had to be started by jumping on a sort of lever. It never started at the first jolt. It usually needed three or four jumps.
I wonder if it's the same with you.
Here. Reread my answer. I'll add a few cues.

Here's the picture I was talking about:



It's literally titled: "KVL-works-if-I-leave-out-the-magnetic-region.jpg"
Does the ".jpg" confuse you? Or is it the dashes?
If you look at the top right corner, it says: "KVL works here".
What part of "KVL works here" you do not understand? "KVL"? "works"? "here"?

I hope it is clear that if you choose to look at a lumpABLE circuit as a lumpED circuit, then KVL works.

Wrooom... wrooom.... ?

?

Maybe that tank of yours is empty?

Answering a Yes or No question with "if blah blah blah blah" probably isn't answering it.

Even a motorbike knows how to answer simple questions like that. You give it a kick, and it answers "No." you give it a few more kicks, and the answer changes from No to Almost. After a while it finally says "Yes."

I think your tank is empty. I don't need you to explain to me how to find out what reality is, I have a volt meter, I already know.

I'm asking your opinion of the following:

Question: In the following diagram, in a real life physical lab test performed with real (time synchronized) volt meters with a real transformer and real resistors CONNECTED AS SHOWN, will the readings of all the volt meters sum to zero, within the accuracy and resolution limitations of the volt meters? YES or NO.
(Or if you believe SOMETIMES is the answer, then explain one scenario for a YES condition and one scenario for a NO condition WITH THE VOLT METERS CONNECTED AS SHOWN - Running additional conductors through the transformer core is not allowed - nor is removing existing conductors from through the transformer core!)

[Sredni]

You are back!  Have you figured out how to CALCULATE the voltage between nodes 'A' and 'D' yet?  Show us!

Your tank is sure dry.
Because I have already told you at least four times that it depends on the path, and I have calculated it for two paths already.

Nope.  The answers you provided are the voltages MEASURED by the 'voltmeters' on the left and right.  CALCULATE the voltage V_AD; you can use either the left branch or the right branch.

I calculated the voltages measured by the voltmeters. These are also the voltages from probe tip to probe tip, because I do not have silly tiny batteries in my probe wires. And I can compute the voltages along the two branches of the circuit that join A and D: one branch through R1 and one branch through R2 (can't use KVL like for Lewin's ring, becase all measurement loops are cutting the flux, so I'll have to use Faraday for those as well). And I can also compute the voltage along a path that joins A and D and cuts the magnetic flux region in two equal parts. Or along a path that draws Snoopy's profile.
But what's the point? You wouldn't understand.

[thinkfat]

It's really funny how one of you insists on calculations and the other one on voltmeter readings being "truth". You really need to clean up your act before you go on stage.

[Jesse Gordon]

It's really funny how one of you insists on calculations and the other one on voltmeter readings being "truth". You really need to clean up your act before you go on stage.

We're grinding both angles because Team Lewin can neither calculate nor measure reality.

Correct calculations like Belcher and McDonald did agree with measurements. Team KVL is on the same page.

Team Lewin, on the other hand, is all over the board.

But the more they realize they are in check, the less willing they become to answer questions, as they find out their understanding of reality is so far off base they dare not show their hand.

[thinkfat]

Blah blah blah. Are you going to answer or not?

[jesuscf]

You are back!  Have you figured out how to CALCULATE the voltage between nodes 'A' and 'D' yet?  Show us!

Your tank is sure dry.
Because I have already told you at least four times that it depends on the path, and I have calculated it for two paths already.

Nope.  The answers you provided are the voltages MEASURED by the 'voltmeters' on the left and right.  CALCULATE the voltage V_AD; you can use either the left branch or the right branch.

I calculated the voltages measured by the voltmeters. These are also the voltages from probe tip to probe tip, because I do not have silly tiny batteries in my probe wires. And I can compute the voltages along the two branches of the circuit that join A and D: one branch through R1 and one branch through R2 (can't use KVL like for Lewin's ring, becase all measurement loops are cutting the flux, so I'll have to use Faraday for those as well). And I can also compute the voltage along a path that joins A and D and cuts the magnetic flux region in two equal parts. Or along a path that draws Snoopy's profile.
But what's the point? You wouldn't understand.

First, let me clarify some terminology: the proper name is not 'silly tiny batteries'; it is 'voltage sources'.  Now remove the 'voltmeters', and you only have the loop and the two resistors R₁ and R₂ and the varying external magnetic field.  What is the voltage between nodes 'A' and 'D'?  I think you already figured it out (how else would have you found V_x and V_y?), but you don't want to contradict Lewin's incorrect answer in which you have invested so much effort...

[Jesse Gordon]

Blah blah blah. Are you going to answer or not?

Like I said, I'll answer you AFTER you answer the following question:

Question: In the following diagram, in a real life physical lab test performed with real (time synchronized) volt meters with a real transformer and real resistors CONNECTED AS SHOWN, will the readings of all the volt meters sum to zero, within the accuracy and resolution limitations of the volt meters? YES or NO.

(Or if you believe SOMETIMES is the answer, then explain one scenario for a YES condition and one scenario for a NO condition WITH THE VOLT METERS CONNECTED AS SHOWN - Running additional conductors through the transformer core is not allowed - nor is removing existing conductors from through the transformer core!)

[jesuscf]

It's really funny how one of you insists on calculations and the other one on voltmeter readings being "truth". You really need to clean up your act before you go on stage.

Hey! I have both calculations and measurements:

Calculated:

V₁=-24mV
V₂=216mV
V_x=-136mV
V_y=-56mV
V_AD=-96mV

Measured:

V₁=-24.4mV
V₂=212mV
V_x=-134mV
V_y=-56mV
V_AD=-96mV

I have yet to see any measurements from team Lewin.  Also, the only one doing calculations in team Lewin is Sredni.  Sadly he can not figure how to calculate V_AD.

[jesuscf]

It's really funny how one of you insists on calculations and the other one on voltmeter readings being "truth". You really need to clean up your act before you go on stage.

We're grinding both angles because Team Lewin can neither calculate nor measure reality.

Correct calculations like Belcher and McDonald did agree with measurements. Team KVL is on the same page.

Team Lewin, on the other hand, is all over the board.

But the more they realize they are in check, the less willing they become to answer questions, as they find out their understanding of reality is so far off base they dare not show their hand.

I do believe that team Lewin doesn't know either how to use the oscilloscope or KVL!  By the way, I asked those two questions earlier in the thread...

[Jesse Gordon]

Well  gents,

we've come full circle ha ha ha 

Supposing you're right that I'm clueless, one thing I do know is that Team Lewin seems to think they in check.

Ever been playing chess with someone and they think they are in check and they are taking forever and don't want to move, because they think it may be checkmate after that?

Team Lewin is unwilling or unable to answer simple yes/no/sometimes to a pivotal question (reproduced below for reference) as if they believe they are in a bind.

In my opinion it has been clearly established with experimental results and mathematically that KVL holds in the below diagram as well as in Lewin's circuit, as Dr. McDonald says.

The absolute refusal on the part of Team Lewin to even admit to the appearance of KVL holding  in the below diagram further confirms their belief that they are cornered on the topic and they do see it as a pivotal question.

You might say that my question below is not pivotal, but looking at the amount of effort Team Lewin has put in trying to avoid answering "Yes" or "No" tells me that it is in fact a pivotal question.

In light of the fact that Team Lewin refuses to embrace (or even admit to) observable reality, it is clear this discussion isn't going to do any good in any short amount of time, and as I need to work if I want to get paid and this isn't what I get paid to do, I'm going to have to reduce the amount of time I enjoy here, so let's see if I can reduce my interaction to a day or two a week.

I do not get notice of  comments here, but if you PM me then I get an email notification, so if somebody actually answers my question for real, please PM  me and let me know!

In other news, I've begun to suspect that ads are playing on my youtube videos which really irks me because I don't upload videos for money and I don't make anything from it and even if I did with 15 videos and 12 subscribers it wouldn't be any money at all - so youtube is running intrusive ads and not paying me and not giving me a choice. If they allowed me to monetize then maybe I could go in and turn ads off for each video, but I can't even try that since they won't allow me to monetize.

Long and the short of it is I'm trying out Vimeo free - I dunno if they are better but I uploaded a couple test videos.

Does this work better? No ads?



And actually, we can all probably see each other in that video ha ha ha ha 

We're all just aphids with this huge shadow 

(Actually Snedri, when I saw that aphid crawling along with a huge shadow I thought of your antics here, that's why I filmed it. But I imagine you probably see KVLer's the same way.)

Question: In the following diagram, in a real life physical lab test performed with real (time synchronized) volt meters with a real transformer and real resistors CONNECTED AS SHOWN, will the readings of all the volt meters sum to zero, within the accuracy and resolution limitations of the volt meters? YES or NO.

(Or if you believe SOMETIMES is the answer, then explain one scenario for a YES condition and one scenario for a NO condition WITH THE VOLT METERS CONNECTED AS SHOWN - Running additional conductors through the transformer core is not allowed - nor is removing existing conductors from through the transformer core!)

[Jesse Gordon]

It's really funny how one of you insists on calculations and the other one on voltmeter readings being "truth". You really need to clean up your act before you go on stage.

Hey! I have both calculations and measurements:

Calculated:

V₁=-24mV
V₂=216mV
V_x=-136mV
V_y=-56mV
V_AD=-96mV

Measured:

V₁=-24.4mV
V₂=212mV
V_x=-134mV
V_y=-56mV
V_AD=-96mV

I have yet to see any measurements from team Lewin.  Also, the only one doing calculations in team Lewin is Sredni.  Sadly he can not figure how to calculate V_AD.

Dude! You gotta be more careful! Really?!? Turning on an actual oscilloscope? Opening up a glimpse into the real world? That's dangerous!

You'll scare the children!! 

[Sredni]

Well  gents,
we've come full circle ha ha ha 
Supposing you're right that I'm clueless, one thing I do know is that Team Lewin seems to think they in check.

Another victory lap.
You are restless.

Team Lewin is unwilling or unable to answer simple yes/no/sometimes to a pivotal question (reproduced below for reference) as if they believe they are in a bind.

The projection is strong in you.
Here is your answer. I wrote YES very big, so you can't miss it.
Read it all. Enjoy.


https://i.postimg.cc/MTKM29p2/KVL-works-YEEESSSSS-Sorta.jpg

[Sredni]

You are back!  Have you figured out how to CALCULATE the voltage between nodes 'A' and 'D' yet?  Show us!

Your tank is sure dry.
Because I have already told you at least four times that it depends on the path, and I have calculated it for two paths already.

Nope.  The answers you provided are the voltages MEASURED by the 'voltmeters' on the left and right.  CALCULATE the voltage V_AD; you can use either the left branch or the right branch.

I calculated the voltages measured by the voltmeters. These are also the voltages from probe tip to probe tip, because I do not have silly tiny batteries in my probe wires. And I can compute the voltages along the two branches of the circuit that join A and D: one branch through R1 and one branch through R2 (can't use KVL like for Lewin's ring, becase all measurement loops are cutting the flux, so I'll have to use Faraday for those as well). And I can also compute the voltage along a path that joins A and D and cuts the magnetic flux region in two equal parts. Or along a path that draws Snoopy's profile.
But what's the point? You wouldn't understand.

First, let me clarify some terminology: the proper name is not 'silly tiny batteries'; it is 'voltage sources'.  Now remove the 'voltmeters', and you only have the loop and the two resistors R₁ and R₂ and the varying external magnetic field.  What is the voltage between nodes 'A' and 'D'?  I think you already figured it out (how else would have you found V_x and V_y?), but you don't want to contradict Lewin's incorrect answer in which you have invested so much effort...

You really, really, really don't get it eh?
Ok. Here is my computed value for Vad - I call it VBA, just because I can

VBA(along left voltmeter) = -136 mV
VBA(along right voltmeter) = -56 mV
VBA(along circuit branch with R1) = +24 mV
VBA(along circuit branch with R2) = -216 mV
VBA(along line that splits the core in two) = -96 mV
VBA(along line that splits the core in 3/8 - 5/8) = -86 mV
VBA(along line that splits the core in 5/8 - 3/8) = -116 mV
VBA(along Snoopy profile) = - 100 mV

Why so many values?
Because...

--- drum roll ---

THE ****ING VOLTAGE DEPENDS ON THE ****ING PATH!!!

[jesuscf]

You really, really, really don't get it eh?
Ok. Here is my computed value for Vad - I call it VBA, just because I can

VBA(along left voltmeter) = -136 mV
VBA(along right voltmeter) = -56 mV
VBA(along circuit branch with R1) = +24 mV
VBA(along circuit branch with R2) = -216 mV
VBA(along line that splits the core in two) = -96 mV
VBA(along line that splits the core in 3/8 - 5/8) = -86 mV
VBA(along line that splits the core in 5/8 - 3/8) = -116 mV
VBA(along Snoopy profile) = - 100 mV

Why so many values?
Because...

--- drum roll ---

THE ****ING VOLTAGE DEPENDS ON THE ****ING PATH!!!

INCORRECT

(Actually, one of them is correct, but I think you got it by accident)

Tip, if you account for the induced EMF in the wires of the path you choose, you can easily compute the unique value of V_AD using

--- drum roll ---

KVL

[Sredni]

Tip, if you account for the induced EMF in the wires of the path you choose,

Well, the really funny thing is... I do account for the induced electric field, while you don't.
You don't know that yet, but the reason you can have a conservative field that admits a scalar potential is that... you have stripped away the contribute of the induced field. It will be revealed in the upcoming post:

"The tiny batteries model, or: 'I don't think that field is what you think it is.' "

that you will misunderstand, of course.

[bsfeechannel]

Maxwellians. People like Sredni aren't suggesting that KVL must hold even when it doesn't. It's not one of Maxwell's Equations - it's not sacred. So why the desperation to save it? Why is it so very important that KVL applies to the Lewin/Romer Ring? Well I don't know why. This is why Sredni is fascinated by the cognitive bias - why does everyone want to save KVL so badly?

I had a physics teacher in high school who used to say “A law is a law and always holds”. He said that because at least my generation had grown up watching Wile E. Coyote fly off a cliff in a horizontal trajectory, stop and, only after he realized there was no ground under his feet, free fall vertically.



People were confused when exactly the laws of motion were valid. If an object is thrown horizontally, does gravity act on it all the time or only when it cannot sustain a flight? Of course gravity acts all the time. So, to avoid having to think too much, teachers convey this idea that the laws of physics always hold.

Since KVL and KCL are presented as laws (Kirchhoff himself called them theorems, not laws), that’s what they think.

When these people go to get their EE degree, the professors don’t give enough emphasis on the fact that KCL  and KVL only hold under certain conditions and that Maxwell’s equations are the complete description of the electromagnetic phenomenon.

The result is people like Dave, Mehdi, Jesse, jesuscf and others who think KVL/KCL and Maxwell’s equations are two concurrent and equivalent theories. One is a clever simplification, they reckon, used by engineers and the other, more complicated, is there to maintain the intellect of physicists occupied. They don’t understand that the “more complicated” theory exists because the “clever simplification” is incomplete.

They get an aversion for calculus and Maxwell’s equations. treat RF superficially and consider any insight on the subject as black magic. In fact they use KVL and KCL to discourage people from going down the maxwellian rabbit hole. They can’t explain any electromagnetic phenomenon if they can’t model it using lumped components.

Dave can’t understand how energy in a DC circuit flows in the fields. Of course. The only components he knows that transfer energy in the fields are capacitors and transformers. Both interrupt any galvanic connection between both sides of the circuits they connect and they block DC.

Look at his cringe-worthy post on Twitter about this.

https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1465447319663374338?s=20

They struggle to interpret their measurements and some of them think that what makes you an engineer is your oscilloscope (goto 39).

It’s worse when these guys, in good faith, have taught KVL and KCL as always holding for years to hundreds of thousands of viewers. As Mehdi himself said in this very interview, it must be difficult to be wrong in front of a million people.

So that’s why KVLers cling to the KVL myth.

I think that the teaching of electromagnetism in schools and colleges must be radically changed. They need to go beyond Lewin and tell students that their whole lives are a lie.

[bsfeechannel]

Well  gents,

we've come full circle ha ha ha 

Supposing you're right that I'm clueless, one thing I do know is that Team Lewin seems to think they in check.

Ever been playing chess with someone and they think they are in check and they are taking forever and don't want to move, because they think it may be checkmate after that?

Team Lewin is unwilling or unable to answer simple yes/no/sometimes to a pivotal question (reproduced below for reference) as if they believe they are in a bind.

In my opinion it has been clearly established with experimental results and mathematically that KVL holds in the below diagram as well as in Lewin's circuit, as Dr. McDonald says.

The absolute refusal on the part of Team Lewin to even admit to the appearance of KVL holding  in the below diagram further confirms their belief that they are cornered on the topic and they do see it as a pivotal question.

You might say that my question below is not pivotal, but looking at the amount of effort Team Lewin has put in trying to avoid answering "Yes" or "No" tells me that it is in fact a pivotal question.

In light of the fact that Team Lewin refuses to embrace (or even admit to) observable reality, it is clear this discussion isn't going to do any good in any short amount of time, and as I need to work if I want to get paid and this isn't what I get paid to do, I'm going to have to reduce the amount of time I enjoy here, so let's see if I can reduce my interaction to a day or two a week.

I do not get notice of  comments here, but if you PM me then I get an email notification, so if somebody actually answers my question for real, please PM  me and let me know!

In other news, I've begun to suspect that ads are playing on my youtube videos which really irks me because I don't upload videos for money and I don't make anything from it and even if I did with 15 videos and 12 subscribers it wouldn't be any money at all - so youtube is running intrusive ads and not paying me and not giving me a choice. If they allowed me to monetize then maybe I could go in and turn ads off for each video, but I can't even try that since they won't allow me to monetize.

Long and the short of it is I'm trying out Vimeo free - I dunno if they are better but I uploaded a couple test videos.

Does this work better? No ads?



And actually, we can all probably see each other in that video ha ha ha ha 

We're all just aphids with this huge shadow 

(Actually Snedri, when I saw that aphid crawling along with a huge shadow I thought of your antics here, that's why I filmed it. But I imagine you probably see KVLer's the same way.)

Question: In the following diagram, in a real life physical lab test performed with real (time synchronized) volt meters with a real transformer and real resistors CONNECTED AS SHOWN, will the readings of all the volt meters sum to zero, within the accuracy and resolution limitations of the volt meters? YES or NO.

(Or if you believe SOMETIMES is the answer, then explain one scenario for a YES condition and one scenario for a NO condition WITH THE VOLT METERS CONNECTED AS SHOWN - Running additional conductors through the transformer core is not allowed - nor is removing existing conductors from through the transformer core!)

TL;DR  I lost, but I won't admit it. I'll even claim victory, like any good KVLer.

[jesuscf]

Maxwellians. People like Sredni aren't suggesting that KVL must hold even when it doesn't. It's not one of Maxwell's Equations - it's not sacred. So why the desperation to save it? Why is it so very important that KVL applies to the Lewin/Romer Ring? Well I don't know why. This is why Sredni is fascinated by the cognitive bias - why does everyone want to save KVL so badly?

I had a physics teacher in high school who used to say “A law is a law and always holds”. He said that because at least my generation had grown up watching Wile E. Coyote fly off a cliff in a horizontal trajectory, stop and, only after he realized there was no ground under his feet, free fall vertically.

People were confused when exactly the laws of motion were valid. If an object is thrown horizontally, does gravity act on it all the time or only when it cannot sustain a flight? Of course gravity acts all the time. So, to avoid having to think too much, teachers convey this idea that the laws of physics always hold.

Since KVL and KCL are presented as laws (Kirchhoff himself called them theorems, not laws), that’s what they think.

When these people go to get their EE degree, the professors don’t give enough emphasis on the fact that KCL  and KVL only hold under certain conditions and that Maxwell’s equations are the complete description of the electromagnetic phenomenon.

The result is people like Dave, Mehdi, Jesse, jesuscf and others who think KVL/KCL and Maxwell’s equations are two concurrent and equivalent theories. One is a clever simplification, they reckon, used by engineers and the other, more complicated, is there to maintain the intellect of physicists occupied. They don’t understand that the “more complicated” theory exists because the “clever simplification” is incomplete.

They get an aversion for calculus and Maxwell’s equations. treat RF superficially and consider any insight on the subject as black magic. In fact they use KVL and KCL to discourage people from going down the maxwellian rabbit hole. They can’t explain any electromagnetic phenomenon if they can’t model it using lumped components.

Dave can’t understand how energy in a DC circuit flows in the fields. Of course. The only components he knows that transfer energy in the fields are capacitors and transformers. Both interrupt any galvanic connection between both sides of the circuits they connect and they block DC.

Look at his cringe-worthy post on Twitter about this.

https://twitter.com/eevblog/status/1465447319663374338?s=20

They struggle to interpret their measurements and some of them think that what makes you an engineer is your oscilloscope (goto 39).

It’s worse when these guys, in good faith, have taught KVL and KCL as always holding for years to hundreds of thousands of viewers. As Mehdi himself said in this very interview, it must be difficult to be wrong in front of a million people.

So that’s why KVLers cling to the KVL myth.

I think that the teaching of electromagnetism in schools and colleges must be radically changed. They need to go beyond Lewin and tell students that their whole lives are a lie.

Hey bsfeechannel, do you have an electrical engineering degree (or similar) from an accredited institution?  I am asking because the Dunning-Kruger is very strong in you.

EDIT: By the way, I have to thank you for putting me in the same group with Dave, Mehdi, and Jesse.  I am pretty sure I am not as good as they are, but nevertheless it is a great honor to me.

[jesuscf]

Tip, if you account for the induced EMF in the wires of the path you choose,

Well, the really funny thing is... I do account for the induced electric field, while you don't.
You don't know that yet, but the reason you can have a conservative field that admits a scalar potential is that... you have stripped away the contribute of the induced field. It will be revealed in the upcoming post:

"The tiny batteries model, or: 'I don't think that field is what you think it is.' "

that you will misunderstand, of course.

Yes, yes, I know the drill.  You will go to the barn, ask your servants to feed the bulls, wait a few hours, and then dump the byproduct of all that fiber rich feed into this forum, with lots of hand drawn components and equations, so to obfuscate and/or divert from the topic.  Instead you should be thinking hard on why the voltage between nodes 'A' and 'D', V_AD is unique and independent of the path you choose to calculate it.

[bsfeechannel]

Hey bsfeechannel, do you have an electrical engineering degree (or similar) from an accredited institution?  I am asking because the Dunning-Kruger is very strong in you.

Hey jesuscf, you showed a few posts ago your absolute stupidity about conservative and non-conservative fields. Who are you kidding?

Without that fundamental concept, you will not understand what Lewin, Belcher, McDonald, Maxwell, Faraday, or any of us are talking about.

[jesuscf]

Hey bsfeechannel, do you have an electrical engineering degree (or similar) from an accredited institution?  I am asking because the Dunning-Kruger is very strong in you.

Hey jesuscf, you showed a few posts ago your absolute stupidity about conservative and non-conservative fields. Who are you kidding?

Without that fundamental concept, you will not understand what Lewin, Belcher, McDonald, Maxwell, Faraday, or any of us are talking about.

Really?  So, you should not have any problem answering these questions then:  1) How many fields do we have in the loop circuit with two resistors?  2) What is the instantaneous power induced in the circuit by the external varying magnetic field?  3) What is the instantaneous power consumed by the circuit?  The answers are three real numbers.

1) ____ fields.

2) ____ W.

3) ____ W.

I'll be waiting!

EDIT: Sorry, I got distracted.  So, do you have a degree or not?

[bsfeechannel]

Really?  So, you should not have any problem answering these questions then:

No, absolutely not.

  1) How many fields do we have in the loop circuit with two resistors?  2) What is the instantaneous power induced in the circuit by the external varying magnetic field?  3) What is the instantaneous power consumed by the circuit?  The answers are three real numbers.

1) ____ fields.

2) ____ W.

3) ____ W.

I'll be waiting!

And the answer is we are not talking about the "number of fields", whatever you mean by that, or how many watts the circuit is consuming. Or how the circuit is getting its energy, which is what I presume you mean by "induced power", although this is an interesting topic we could discuss.

And here you see the proof that you don't know what any of us, including Belcher, McDonald, Lewin, and many others cited along the thread, are talking about. If you knew, you wouldn't be making such childish assertions and non pertinent questions.

EDIT: Sorry, I got distracted.  So, do you have a degree or not?

I've already answered that question.

[thinkfat]

Regarding the "tiny voltage sources", the funny thing (which is a bit sad also) is that all the "experimental proof" by Jesse and e.g. Cyriel Mabilde are just cunning demonstrations of how to create paths that enclose a variable amount of magnetic flux. The sad part is that they're unable to see it and will keep claiming it is proof of "KVL holds". But in reality they're not measuring a gradual voltage build-up in the "Lewin Ring", but just the EMF induced in their measurement loop. This under the condition that there is only negligible current flowing through the ring and the measurement loop, of course.

[Jesse Gordon]

Well  gents,
we've come full circle ha ha ha 
Supposing you're right that I'm clueless, one thing I do know is that Team Lewin seems to think they in check.

Another victory lap.
You are restless.

Team Lewin is unwilling or unable to answer simple yes/no/sometimes to a pivotal question (reproduced below for reference) as if they believe they are in a bind.

The projection is strong in you.
Here is your answer. I wrote YES very big, so you can't miss it.
Read it all. Enjoy.


https://i.postimg.cc/43tS42YM/KVL-works-YEEESSSSS-Sorta.jpg

Again, you ignored the question I asked, asked a question of your own choosing, then answered that emphatically yes.

Why not just answer directly?

Fortunately, your above example bears enough resemblance to my diagram below that I'm just going to take you as having said YES to my question too, that in the diagram below, KVL holds -- because I'm using a toroid, and the "other side" of a toroid is inside the hole, and my KVL loop is not inside there, only some of the private internals of some of it's elements.

In other words, my entire loop is on one side of the core. Since it's a toroid, one side is outside and the other side is inside so it's easy.


https://i.postimg.cc/jdJntBXT/20211128-121506.jpg

Was that so hard?

@thinkfat, See, I told you that Sredni agrees with me that the secondaries of toroidal and EI-Core transformers work just fine as lumped elements in a loop and KVL holds.

Of course before that, he said no, but I guess he changed his mind. But before that he said yes, so I guess he's changed his mind a couple times. I hear his crystalball rumbling, I bet it's gonna change again 

This also means that my "KVL Holds in an iron core transformer" video also is valid, since the loop exists entirely outside of the transformer, and the two red wires are just secondary turns:
https://youtu.be/iDWv8QJrzUo

So what's the big deal? Why all the balking about this one?


Can we all agree now that KVL holds fine when one or more of the elements is a 2-terminal secondary winding on a toroidal or EI-Core transformer?

Then we can move onto Lewin's Loop.

[Jesse Gordon]

TL;DR  I lost, but I won't admit it. I'll even claim victory, like any good KVLer.

Spoken like a true Anti-KVLer who lost but won't admit it!

Look how silly that game is. For all the effort you put in, why not just answer the following question? Sredni already agreed with me that the answer to my below question is YES!

Question: In the following diagram, in a real life physical lab test performed with real (time synchronized) volt meters with a real transformer and real resistors CONNECTED AS SHOWN, will the readings of all the volt meters sum to zero, within the accuracy and resolution limitations of the volt meters? YES or NO.

(Or if you believe SOMETIMES is the answer, then explain one scenario for a YES condition and one scenario for a NO condition WITH THE VOLT MEvTERS CONNECTED AS SHOWN - Running additional conductors through the transformer core is not allowed - nor is removing existing conductors from through the transformer core!)