General > General Technical Chat
Sick of ridiculous KVL infighting
<< < (10/15) > >>
Psi:

--- Quote from: instrumental on January 13, 2022, 12:41:05 pm ---40 pages and a few months on, some nerds don't seem to know when to quit arguing. The video Mehdi made about a "principled disagreement" with Lewin's lectures is rough as well, and now this has spiralled into numerous YouTube videos trying and failing to explain EM theory. I'm surprised to see so much discord in a community of professional electronics engineers.

I'm quite tired of seeing this, so I am hoping to provide a fairly definitive explanation of:
.....

--- End quote ---



emece67:
.
emece67:
.
thinkfat:

--- Quote from: emece67 on January 15, 2022, 10:58:39 am ---Note: laying the probes in a way that they are always orthogonal to the induced E field is an easy way (supposed you know how the hell is the induced E field!) to measure \(\Phi_B-\Phi_A\), but not the only choice. What you need to ensure is that the line integral of the induced E field along the probes is 0.

--- End quote ---

Wouldn't the latter be true also for any closed path that doesn't contain any time-varying magnetic flux?
RoGeorge:

--- Quote from: bdunham7 on January 15, 2022, 03:47:34 am ---
--- Quote from: RoGeorge on January 15, 2022, 02:23:52 am ---Voltage is the work required to move an unit of electric charge between two points A and B.

--- End quote ---

That is one definition and for many things, likely the most sensible.  However, it is not the only reasonable or possible definition.

--- End quote ---

1. No and 2. Yes

1.  If that is a definition for many other things, then give some examples.  A definition must uniquely identify the thing we want to define.  Maybe you spotted in that definition a mistake nobody seen before.  Highly unlikely but possible, so give an example to understand what you meant there.



2.  Physics laws are all linked together, like a big network, or a mesh of relations and interactions, a rats nest, a spaghetti code, call it how you like, e big entanglement of relations.  At some point somebody observers something new, and define that new discovery as being such and so, in terms of some other common knowledge and definitions.

But that new thing discovered is already entangled with other laws and relations, and formulas of how to deduce one from another are clarified and so on.  Usually the first definition stays, sometimes it is polished and changed, but there is no absolute definitions in physics.

Everything is defined in relation with some other things.  We all agree to consider some 7 units as fundamental, and define everything else in terms of those 7 picks:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit  but that is only a convention, like a random pick if you want to say it like that.  Those 7 units are so mostly because of historical reasons, can be as well other set of units.  Some green Martians can have a completely different set of definitions for the same Universe, and that wouldn't change Physics at all.

Because all physics laws we know so far are linked together, we can pick whatever starting point as a definition.

So, a definition can be relative to any other known thing, but it must let no doubt about the new thing it defines.  Also, it must be in relation with something else.  It is not allowed to define "a volt = a volt + a horse after you removed the horse".
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod