By the way. Here is the real thing without the lumping box, in case someone still has some doubts.
I can't see where we are disproving ourselves. We are not claiming anything. We're consistently showing that the claim that Kirchhoff always hold is nothing but quackery.
I wonder when you realize that those guys do not have word "agree" in their vocabulary They are ready to disprove their own words - if it is you who is speaking
We're consistently showing that the claim that Kirchhoff always hold is nothing but quackery.
By the way. Here is the real thing without the lumping box, in case someone still has some doubts.
Yep that's what it would show without the box.
Notice that the inner voltmeters still show 0.1V and 0.9V? Care to explain why they didn't change regardless of the shielding box being there while others did change?
I can't see where we are disproving ourselves. We are not claiming anything. We're consistently showing that the claim that Kirchhoff always hold is nothing but quackery.
It always holds in circuit meshes, not elsewhere. Typical word twisting as usual.
I wonder when you realize that those guys do not have word "agree" in their vocabulary They are ready to disprove their own words - if it is you who is speakingQuoteYeah this has turned into a Maxwell versus Kirchhoff pissing contest 15 pages ago. But so far i have yet to see a good explanation why the two can't be both used provided you know how to use them rather than just slapping formulas on things without knowing what they actually do.
We're consistently showing that the claim that Kirchhoff always hold is nothing but quackery.
You have serious issues. Nobody claims that Kirchhoff always hold.
We're consistently showing that the claim that Kirchhoff always hold is nothing but quackery.
You have serious issues. Nobody claims that Kirchhoff always hold.
Ogden said that Mehdi is nobody. Duly noted.
Look up the word sarcasm in the dictionary.
Of course. Because the line integral along the path that includes them and the wires is exactly the same. In other words, the varying magnetic field that the meters and the wires are encircling is exactly the same. The magnetic field outside the closed path doesn't affect the EMF.
This is what Faraday discovered and Maxwell described mathematically. As simple as that. That's the way nature works. There's nothing we can do to change that. You have to accept it. Not because I'm tell you, but because every time you try to repeat this experiment, it will always work that way.
There is, of course, an explanation for the underlying phenomenon of induction, but it is not the topic of this thread.
QuoteI can't see where we are disproving ourselves. We are not claiming anything. We're consistently showing that the claim that Kirchhoff always hold is nothing but quackery.
It always holds in circuit meshes, not elsewhere. Typical word twisting as usual.
NOOOOOOOOOO. Kirchhoff doesn't always hold even for circuit meshes. The inductor itself is a proof of that.
If Kirchhoff always held you couldn't even have inductors, as the voltage inside an inductor, i.e. along the path of the wire, is zero and outside it is different from zero. How can that be?
You don't understand it because you didn't read Feynman carefully as I recommended you to. This explanation is there.
It's because Kirchhoff fails that we have inductors, generators, transformers, antennas, etc.
Thanks to your favorite deity, or the lack thereof, that Kirchhoff fails. The failure of Kirchhoff is the best thing that could happen to humankind. Every time Kirchhoff fails, the world smiles. (I think I'll create a t-shirt with those words.)
This is not a pissing contest between Maxwell and Kirchhoff. As Kirchhoff is a special case of Maxwell, the only thing we are trying to show you is exactly that.
Yes, so when you say they are exactly the same also means that you are saying this circuit exactly acts exactly the same as a ideal transformer.
If not, can you show in what way does it behave differently?
Have you ever did AC circuit analysis my hand? If you did then i would have assumed you would have less trouble understanding what an inductor is.
Sometimes circuit modeling even uses inductors where there are no magnetic effects involved (One such example is the common model of a quartz crystal). An inductor is simply U=L*di . If you want to have always zero voltage over it just give it 0H of inductance, but i don't think that's a particularly useful use case for an inductor model.
What exactly are you trying to prove with that diagram? We all know you can't just directly use Kirchhoffs circuit laws inside real world magnetic fields. Did anyone say you can?
Well yeah its a special case where circuit meshes (Where KVL is meant to be used) without realistically modeled wires happen to behave the same as a real world circuit.
Both Maxwell and Kirchhoff work just fine when used correctly. So why is it a problem that there are two ways to go about calculating electrical circuit behavior?
QuoteIf not, can you show in what way does it behave differently?
It behaves differently because you made the lines of the varying magnetic field return elsewhere. Now V1 and V2 are equal to V3 and V4, respectively. This means that the sum of the voltages around the inner loop is 1V, which rightfully violates Kirchhoff. So this is not an ideal transformer anymore. This is just a regular circuit subject to induction like simply all real circuits.
QuoteHave you ever did AC circuit analysis my hand? If you did then i would have assumed you would have less trouble understanding what an inductor is.
I do not have any trouble with inductors. I designed and built an isolation transformer and documented it on the Internet. Do you remember?
QuoteWhat exactly are you trying to prove with that diagram? We all know you can't just directly use Kirchhoffs circuit laws inside real world magnetic fields. Did anyone say you can?
The voltages are not measured inside the field. An inductor is the simplest circuit mesh possible. It's just a piece of wire connected to whatever. The voltage across the piece of wire is always zero. The voltage across whatever is different from zero. If you add them up you get something different from zero.
Read Feynman once more and if you still don't understand, maybe we can help.
QuoteWell yeah its a special case where circuit meshes (Where KVL is meant to be used) without realistically modeled wires happen to behave the same as a real world circuit.
No. Stop this pseudo-scientific talk. KVL is a special case of Faraday when there's no varying magnetic field inside the circuit. Repeat until enlightened.
QuoteBoth Maxwell and Kirchhoff work just fine when used correctly. So why is it a problem that there are two ways to go about calculating electrical circuit behavior?
There's ONLY ONE theory to explain electricity and magnetism: Maxwell, and Kirchhoff is just a special case of it. This is a tried and proven truth.
What part of Feynmans lecture did i understand wrong?
Ah alright that's what is bothering you, alright fine il do some drawing too.
I wonder when you realize that those guys do not have word "agree" in their vocabulary
Perfect. Now let's suppose that I define two paths: #1 from A to B and #2 from B to A. Let's suppose, then, that the voltages measured between these two points following these two different paths are different. If we start form point A via path #1 and return to it via path #2, and if we add up these two voltages, will we have zero volts?
Following the circuit analysis definition of voltage:
Path1: Amount of charge separation caused by the EMF in the wire
Loop1 EMF: 1V * 0.1334 = 133.4mV
Path2: Same two points so same voltage: 133.4 mV
If your results don't agree please also explain how you reached your numbers.
I do not want to spoil bsfeechannel's fun, so I will only pose a question.
Following the textbook definition of voltage
Path1: 0V (Because as you said there is a wire there that nulls out the sum of E fields)
Path2: No wire to null the field so the voltage is purely the EMF around that path, however the EMF was specified for the whole loop so Path1 has to be subtracted out
Total Area of loop: 35.295 cm2
Total EMF voltage around the loop: 1V
Loop area occupied by Path1: 4.71 cm2
Loop area ratio: 4.71 / 35.295 = 0.1334
Loop2 EMF: 1V * (1-0.1334) = 866.6 mV
Following the circuit analysis definition of voltage:
Path1: Amount of charge separation caused by the EMF in the wire
Loop1 EMF: 1V * 0.1334 = 133.4mV
Path2: Same two points so same voltage: 133.4 mV
If your results don't agree please also explain how you reached your numbers.
Following the circuit analysis definition of voltage:
Path1: Amount of charge separation caused by the EMF in the wire
Loop1 EMF: 1V * 0.1334 = 133.4mV
Path2: Same two points so same voltage: 133.4 mV
If your results don't agree please also explain how you reached your numbers.
I do not want to spoil bsfeechannel's fun, so I will only pose a question.
To be clear, the unique, single-valued, 'circuit-analysis-defined' voltage across the physically tangible piece of wire has a value that depends on the area (or ratio thereof) that such wire define with an arbitrary imaginary path?
I mean, if the imaginary 'path #2' had a vertical side comprise between 2 and B, you would have found a different value for the unique circuit-analysis voltage? And another one, if it went way out on the left of the paper?
I think I owe you an apology. My drawing was not sufficiently clear. The magnetic field B should be spread uniformly all over the page. But that's OK, because the next step would be to make the magnetic field spread uniformly over the area like in the picture below. I.e., it is zero outside the loop formed by paths #1 and #2, and it is also zero for the blank portion of the same loop. B's intensity will be adjusted so that, together with that area (that you may consider square if you want), the EMF is still 1V.
I also forgot to say that the wire does not produce charge separation. It just "magically" nullifies any attempt at producing an electric field inside it. However you can keep on calculating your "circuit analysis definition of voltage" as if it were, if you want.
As for the voltage according to your "text definition of voltage", path #1 is OK, even with my unclear drawing. Path #2 I think would be a different value, but since my drawing is screwed, it is OK that at least you considered it different from zero.
So now, we're gonna use this ideal piece of wire to cover path #2 and we will leave path #1 free. We still need to know the voltage between points A and B. Let's see if our calculations will lead to the same value, shall we?