I already answered to that specific question - by looping the measurement wire through the core -, but it doesn't prevent it being re-asked repeatedly, just like before.
These people are indeed like broken records. Or maybe you want to hear the answer from Sredni or bsfeechannel? Maybe I'm not qualified?
The key difference in Lewin's excercise and ogden's transformer circuit is that the former circuit is completely placed within the varying field, making it impossible to route the probe wires outside of the field.
The key difference in Lewin's excercise and ogden's transformer circuit is that the former circuit is completely placed within the varying field, making it impossible to route the probe wires outside of the field. The transformer? The field is contained within the core, and you can conveniently measure from the taps that are bought outside of the field.
As soon as Lewin's followers agree
that path-directivity can be proven
Summarizing a bit:
4) Many people have debunked Lewin's claims, including Mehdi, RDS accademy, and Mabilde. Neither Jesse nor I are the first ones.
If you don't know how to use KVL, it doesn't mean that KVL doesn't work!
This is incredibly sad. I may have overestimated the EEVBlog forum community quality.
[...]
Now I have realized how mediocre "practical engineers" can be totally manipulated into participating such needless and ridiculous war against science and education. Incredibly sad.
[...]
So get off the high horse and read, read, and reread until you understand. I'm not the only one who did full 180 and needed to apologize. It's not easy.
The key difference in Lewin's excercise and ogden's transformer circuit is that the former circuit is completely placed within the varying field, making it impossible to route the probe wires outside of the field. The transformer? The field is contained within the core, and you can conveniently measure from the taps that are bought outside of the field.
Actually, no. The probe wires are all outside of the magnetic flux region in Dr. Lewins experiment.
"Path-directivity", he said.
Man, come on. Stop it. You're not fooling anyone. You don't know the theory, nor the practice, and not even the terminology, because you don't know jack squat what it means.
Summarizing a bit:
4) Many people have debunked Lewin's claims, including Mehdi, RDS accademy, and Mabilde. Neither Jesse nor I are the first ones.
What you didn't say is that Mehdi, RDS, Mabilde and Jesse debunk each other. Mehdi said Lewin measured two different voltages across the same two points of the circuit due to bad probing. Mabilde said it was not bad probing, contradicting Mehdi, but it is because there's a "hidden" EMF in the probes. The RDS guy said the problem is otherwise: the ohm's law, according to him, predicts the presence of a voltage across a static wire that's not the product of its current times its resistance. Contradicting Mehdi and Mabilde. Jesse, the poor bugger, doesn't even have a theory to contradict the others, so he doesn't know what is really at stake, nor what to look for, nor how to interpret the results of his "experiment".
In common, all of the above showed without any doubt that, yes, voltages around a circuit immersed in a varying magnetic field are path-dependent. Jesse's setup even shows that dynamically. He changes the position, i.e. the path, of the hands of his clock and the meter displays a different voltage every time.QuoteIf you don't know how to use KVL, it doesn't mean that KVL doesn't work!
No one said KVL doesn't work. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. It works when there's no varying magnetic field inside the area delimited by the boundaries of the circuit, and doesn't work otherwise.
You are definitively delusional! Mehdi, Bob Duhamel, Mabilde, Jesse, and I agree without contradiction among other things, that Lewin didn't probe the circuit correctly. This 'straw man' you are trying to create only highlights your deep ignorance about this subject matter. Lewin does say KVL doesn't work in the particular experiment that concerns us. But indeed KVL works as I have demonstrated may times already.
You are definitively delusional! Mehdi, Bob Duhamel, Mabilde, Jesse, and I agree without contradiction among other things, that Lewin didn't probe the circuit correctly. This 'straw man' you are trying to create only highlights your deep ignorance about this subject matter. Lewin does say KVL doesn't work in the particular experiment that concerns us. But indeed KVL works as I have demonstrated may times already.
The only thing you agree with is that Lewin is, according to you, wrong, but none of you agree exactly why. And your experiments exhibit exactly the same outcome of Lewin's experiment: it is possible to measure two different voltages at the same time across the same two points of a circuit subjected to a varying magnetic field inside the area delimited by its borders. In none of your experiments you could measure exactly the same voltage for any position of the probes or the meters.
So ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I am not natural englisch speaker,
also you most likely got what I did mean by saying so
, but instead of just correcting, you did not miss opportunity to insult, again.
I am not natural englisch speaker,
No excuse. You had plenty of time to understand what the path-dependence of voltage means because you have been exposed to this concept for quite a few years now.Quotealso you most likely got what I did mean by saying so
We have corrected you multiple times and you refused to accept the correction. Why would you accept it now?Quote, but instead of just correcting, you did not miss opportunity to insult, again.
Ignorance is a moral issue. Don't blame me for yours.
1) What is the calculated voltage between nodes A and D, VAD, in Lewin's circuit?
Ignorance is a moral issue. Don't blame me for yours.
1) What is the calculated voltage between nodes A and D, VAD, in Lewin's circuit?
We have heard this "question" so many times I think we are reaching a situation which could be considered spam, forbidden by the forum rules. Basically copy-pasting your arguments is not helpful to anyone.
You have been given calculated values many times in this thread, also reasoning behind the numbers. It seems clear you just don't like the answer, or agree with it. Which is fine. But...
Now with sensible adults, discussion goes like this:
1 You ask X
2 You get answered
3 You don't agree
4 You tell why you don't agree so discussion can go on
5a In the end, either you accept being wrong, or you are right. Somebody learns something;
or
5b There is no resolution. End of story. No endless loop. Everybody can go do something else.
Not this:
1 You ask X
2 You get answered
3 You don't agree
4 goto 1, infinitely, word for word. + use the fact that others do not participate in your sick game and copy-paste their answers, as some kind of proof for a victory dance.
I see this as borderline harassment, nothing else. This is not only embarrassing because it's so obvious, but I'm sure everybody feels bad, yourself included, no? Please consider stopping this behavior and start behaving like a decent human being, accepting the fact that you are in disagreement, but trying to go forward.
1) What is the calculated voltage between nodes A and D, VAD, in Lewin's circuit?
We have heard this "question" so many times I think we are reaching a situation which could be considered spam, forbidden by the forum rules. Basically copy-pasting your arguments is not helpful to anyone.
You have been given calculated values many times in this thread, also reasoning behind the numbers. It seems clear you just don't like the answer, or agree with it. Which is fine. But...
Now with sensible adults, discussion goes like this:
1 You ask X
2 You get answered
3 You don't agree
4 You tell why you don't agree so discussion can go on
5a In the end, either you accept being wrong, or you are right. Somebody learns something;
or
5b There is no resolution. End of story. No endless loop. Everybody can go do something else.
Not this:
1 You ask X
2 You get answered
3 You don't agree
4 goto 1, infinitely, word for word. + use the fact that others do not participate in your sick game and copy-paste their answers, as some kind of proof for a victory dance.
I see this as borderline harassment, nothing else. This is not only embarrassing because it's so obvious, but I'm sure everybody feels bad, yourself included, no? Please consider stopping this behavior and start behaving like a decent human being, accepting the fact that you are in disagreement, but trying to go forward.
Do you know why I keep asking? Because if you answer it correctly then you'll admit that KVL works in Lewin's circuit, which is the topic of this forum.
So, see if you can calculate VAD and then measure VAD and they match... So start by calculating VAD first, then we can talk.
1) What is the calculated voltage between nodes A and D, VAD, in Lewin's circuit?
It.
Depends.
On.
The.
Path.
Here are a few paths for which VAD, which I call VBA, has the value +0.9V.
Among this paths there are the left circuit branch and the path composed by probes and left voltmeter.
Yes, it depends on the path of the circuit formed by the wires and components. An unique path that is not changing geometry or moving throughout space. The dashed paths you drew in the figure above are not valid paths because they are incapable of circulating current; they are made of... air? You can not apply Faraday's law or more generally KVL on those made up paths. The line integral must follow the circuit. At this point you are even in conflict with what is correct in Lewin's lectures. It is a waste of time to argue with you on anything else when you can not grasp this very simple concept.
Yes, it depends on the path of the circuit formed by the wires and components. An unique path that is not changing geometry or moving throughout space. The dashed paths you drew in the figure above are not valid paths because they are incapable of circulating current; they are made of... air? You can not apply Faraday's law or more generally KVL on those made up paths. The line integral must follow the circuit. At this point you are even in conflict with what is correct in Lewin's lectures. It is a waste of time to argue with you on anything else when you can not grasp this very simple concept.
Don't let your ignorance of the concept itself of voltage hinder you.
Show us the values for the voltages across the resistors and across the probes in the above asymmetric and offcentered Lewin ring.
All paths are made of copper, resistive material and voltmetrium. All in matter, the way you like.
Now, please, tell us what those values are.
Time to put up or shut up.
Back to Lewin's circuit which is perfectly symmetric, with no extra 'dashed' paths. Let us concentrate on that fixed circuit, with no extra wires of any kind. If you assume the voltage between nodes A and D, VAD, is unique at some instant of time (which by the way it is true), can you calculate that voltage?
Lewin's cultists suddenly ignore Faraday's law of Electromagnetic Induction
Lewin's cultists suddenly ignore Faraday's law of Electromagnetic Induction
There are two kinds of people here: those who, in the words of Siwastaja, "get off the high horse and read, read, and reread until you understand", and those who are too lazy to learn electromagnetism and think that attacking those who can teach it will redeem them from their profound stupidity.
Nope! There is also bsfeechannel, a fine example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.