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?
As you are claiming that this is recursive - you shall not have any difficulties of finding post with answer to this ever repeating question.
As you are claiming that this is recursive - you shall not have any difficulties of finding post with answer to this ever repeating question.
Oh, now I see the tactic clearly.
Now, please, tell us what those values are.
Time to put up or shut up.
What you are trying to do here is the good old "moving-the-goalposts" fallacy. You are trying to distract from the original question; your plan is not going to work.
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?
Yes I was expecting to continue discussion with Sredni or bsfeechannel, not you. As soon as Lewin's followers agree that path-dependency can be proven using multiple windings of measurement wire which are essentially another secondary winding on transformer
Now, please, tell us what those values are.
Time to put up or shut up.
What you are trying to do here is the good old "moving-the-goalposts" fallacy. You are trying to distract from the original question; your plan is not going to work.
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?
You remind me of that guy who claimed he could read.
But he could only read from his own only book. Not other books.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta.
What happened to your beautiful theory? It only applies to circular concentric setups?
What I described applies to any circuit! It may not be easy but it is doable! I will not be distracted with a harder problem because that is your tactic. Let us concentrate in easy symmetric setups like Lewin's circuit, the one where he says KVL doesn't work. Did you figure out how to calculate VAD yet? You may want to read the post from Ogden, he explains it clearly, and it is very easy.
Apparently he figured it out. Here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/amphour/562-electroboom!/msg3927425/#msg3927425
Can you explain us where is his calculation wrong?
I have seen Ogden's calculations, but such calculation relies heavily on symmetry. Albeit knowing that it may be harder, how is that calculation applied to a non symmetric circuit?
Regards.
There is only one answer. The voltage VAD is unique, because there is only one path to consider, the path of the circuit.
Then how will you measure such VAD?The real question here should be: will KVL work on an loop that is not circular with an asymmetrically placed magnetic flux? Of course it will! That is what Faraday's law tell us.
Then how will you calculate VAD in an asymmetrical circuit?
Yes I was expecting to continue discussion with Sredni or bsfeechannel, not you. As soon as Lewin's followers agree that path-dependency can be proven using multiple windings of measurement wire which are essentially another secondary winding on transformer
But are they?
The other winding has the voltmeter's internal resistance embedded into it. Do you really think it is equivalent to another secondary winding of a transformer?
Back to the voltage between A-D: If circuit is symmetric, all four wires of the circuit loop equal length, resistors so small that we ignore EMF inside them, then each wire receives 1/4 of EMF, 1V/4 = 0.25V. Voltage between A and D will be +0.25V-0.1V+0.25V = 0.4V if calculated using 100 Ohm resistor side. Also we can calculate voltage using 900 Ohm resistor side, -0.25+0.9V-0.25=0.4V.How would you compute Vad if:
- the circuit is not symmetric;
- and the four wires have different lengths.
And also, how will you measure Vad (supposed that it is even possible to directly measure it)?
Now, please, tell us what those values are.
Time to put up or shut up.
What you are trying to do here is the good old "moving-the-goalposts" fallacy. You are trying to distract from the original question; your plan is not going to work.
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?
You remind me of that guy who claimed he could read.
But he could only read from his own only book. Not other books.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta.
What happened to your beautiful theory? It only applies to circular concentric setups?
What I described applies to any circuit! It may not be easy but it is doable!
I will not be distracted with a harder problem because that is your tactic.
Let us concentrate in easy symmetric setups like Lewin's circuit, the one where he says KVL doesn't work. Did you figure out how to calculate VAD yet?
By the way, where are the calculations for the two capacitor problem? It looks to me that you used SPICE to solve that one. How did you represent the induced EMF in the equivalent circuit?
Now, please, tell us what those values are.
Time to put up or shut up.
What you are trying to do here is the good old "moving-the-goalposts" fallacy. You are trying to distract from the original question; your plan is not going to work.
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?
You remind me of that guy who claimed he could read.
But he could only read from his own only book. Not other books.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta.
What happened to your beautiful theory? It only applies to circular concentric setups?
What I described applies to any circuit! It may not be easy but it is doable!
Oh, I know it is doable. Numerically. And Notaros, McDonald and Belcher know how to do it, as well.
But I believe most KVLers have no friggin' idea on how to do it.
Can you do it?QuoteI will not be distracted with a harder problem because that is your tactic.
No, my tactic is to show you that the EM method of using both the electrical scalar potential and the magnetic vector potential is not the brightest of the ideas when you are dealing with circuits. And if you were able to solve that problem you would know what Notaros and McDonald mean. And I could also show you how you do NOT use this method in every day life.QuoteLet us concentrate in easy symmetric setups like Lewin's circuit, the one where he says KVL doesn't work. Did you figure out how to calculate VAD yet?
See? I showed you so many VAD so many times that I've lost count. And you still pretend I didn't.QuoteBy the way, where are the calculations for the two capacitor problem? It looks to me that you used SPICE to solve that one. How did you represent the induced EMF in the equivalent circuit?
Do you really think it's that difficult to compute the reactances and use those instead of resistances?
Wow. To me, it's so easy it's basically a waste of time doing it.
But I will do it when you show me what are the actual voltages across the resistors and the probe wires in the circuit I've drawn.
Can't you do it?
I do not see you are answering my question which was very SPECIFIC - about transformer with 100 turns of secondary winding. Also if you use voltmeter leads with resistance embedded into them - stop doing that! Get proper tools.
[edit] Same fallacy again and again. You can't draw mythical dotted line which separates circuit wires from probe wires and claim that Faradays's law of Induction stops where you choose:
Seems you missed this:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/amphour/562-electroboom!/msg3913808/#msg3913808
Are those the zero internal resistance voltmeters?
This video from Trevor Kearney debunks many, if not all your claims:
Have you watched it yet? Pay attention on how many potential difference voltages between nodes A and B he calculates: one.
This video from Trevor Kearney debunks many, if not all your claims:
Have you watched it yet? Pay attention on how many potential difference voltages between nodes A and B he calculates: one.
This is the second time I write this in this thread.
Dude, that's Trevor Kearney. He's probably the most active "Lewin defender" on youtube (go read his posts on Electroboom's channel if you don't believe me). He's "Armchair Physics Nobel Laureate" number one in fromjesse's scale. It's funny that you bring his videos in your defense (like fromjesse linking those videos from Purdue university, not understanding that professor Melloch has the same views as Lewin).
Trevor is computing the ELECTRIC SCALAR POTENTIAL difference. One of the two components of the actual voltage.
And, no, in the case of my wobbly circuit, not even him will be able to find a closed analytical solution. You have to go numerical. But that's not the point. The point is that you are not able to find 'your' voltage between any two points of a simple resistive circuit linking a variable magnetic flux. Not a very useful theory, isn't it. Especially considering that you should apply that even to simple resistive circuits NOT linking a variable magnetic flux, but just being in the same universe as a variable magnetic flux region. (Let me guess: you have no idea what I am talking about, right?)
ADDENDUM
Yes, I really meant "zero internal resistance voltmeters" because I did consider the 10 meg internal resistance of my voltmeter when I showed you that running a voltmeter with its probes around a magnetic core is NOT the same thing as running a zero resistance wire around it. But you did not understand that either
Same fallacy again and again. You can't draw mythical dotted line which separates circuit wires from probe wires and claim that Faradays's law of Induction stops where you choose:
You do not understand what you see. Any path you can imagine within that region of space will NOT be able to form a loop (with the branch of circuit you want to measure the voltage of) that will cut the variable flux. That is why KVL will work in that region of space.
In 2D it's easy to see it. In 3D the three-dimensional region of space will be more complicated, but you can still find it.
Same fallacy again and again. You can't draw mythical dotted line which separates circuit wires from probe wires and claim that Faradays's law of Induction stops where you choose:
You do not understand what you see. Any path you can imagine within that region of space will NOT be able to form a loop (with the branch of circuit you want to measure the voltage of) that will cut the variable flux. That is why KVL will work in that region of space.
In 2D it's easy to see it. In 3D the three-dimensional region of space will be more complicated, but you can still find it.
So you say that circuit containing just open wire loop which you drew around variable flux area is subject of Faraday's law of induction, but probe leads which also you drew around variable flux area, just farther away than wire - do not? This is yes/no question.
So you say that circuit containing just open wire loop which you drew around variable flux area is subject of Faraday's law of induction, but probe leads which also you drew around variable flux area, just farther away than wire - do not? This is yes/no question.
It may surprise you, but the answer to this would actually be: no.
And still the volt meter would read 0V.
Lewin's cultists truly believe that 1/4 of the transformer wire turn do not have 1/4 of EMF on it because when they try to measure using voltmeter, by placing voltmeter leads next to wire they measure, they see 0V - as expected.
It is obvious that Faradays' law of induction do not care - it is test circuit or voltmeter leads, but Lewin's cultists are stubborn, they claim that they know better and for some reason voltmeter leads are not influenced by time-varying magnetic field of experiment, only circuit.
In short - fact that Lewin and his cultists struggle to properly measure EMF, do not mean it does not exist.
QuoteIn short - fact that Lewin and his cultists struggle to properly measure EMF, do not mean it does not exist.
We, you and all the other cabrones like Mehdi, Mabilde, Jesse and the RSD dude, measure and the voltage is zero (or to be precise it is the current times the resistance of the wire), exactly like the theory predicts.
Does KVL hold? Yes!
\$ - 0.3798V + 0.1A \times 5\Omega + 0.1A \times 5\Omega - 0.6202V = 0 \$
What BS excuse are you going to craft now?
The theory of conjugate conductors has been investigated by
Kirchhoff, who has stated the conditions of a linear system in
the following manner, in which the consideration of the potential
is avoided.
(1) (Condition of 'continuity.') At any point of the system
the sum of all the currents which flow towards that point is
zero.
(2) In any complete circuit formed by the conductors the sum
of the electromotive forces taken round the circuit is equal to
the sum of the products of the current in each conductor multi-
plied by the resistance of that conductor.
It is always worth reminding ourselves that our voltmeter connected between nodes A and B, and the conditions are that the voltmeter measurement PATH does not intersect the time varying field, the voltmeter will not indicate the potential difference between A and B, rather it will indicate the OHMIC voltage difference between nodes A and B.