
#19
Dec1812, 05:17 PM

P: 3,842

Ha ha, you guys!!! You ready to spend your whole Christmas on this? Go post your disagreement in the Classical Physics section. You are going to have a very Merry Christmas. I can't even finish watch this video, it is very similar to the one I spent my Christmas, it's the same professor Levin.
I serve my time, read the thread I show first. I went through similar thoughts, hell, I did experiments, I drew equivalent circuits, I explained voltage source from magnetic induction. I even show how you can make the reading change on the scope just by moving the ground lead of the scope probe. Go to post #11 here, watch the video, go to post #224 of that thread where I showed the result of the experiment and my argument. Read my work to save you a lot of time first and then continue the argument. Don't argue here, go to the classical physics forum where they have people with strong electrodynamics knowledge. I am out, I hope you win. Late editing: I have every intention to have a Merry Christmas.......Not on the professor Levin. You guys can carry the torch!!! 



#20
Dec2212, 02:40 PM

P: 3,842

You are the Science Adviser, I value your input. 



#21
Dec2312, 06:05 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 11,341

Ohm's Law is not a 'Law', as such. It is really only a description of how metals behave at a constant temperature  and that isn't something you can 'challenge', exactly. It may be that people misinterpret it but that's another matter. Resistivity of a metal hardly changes with frequency but skin effect will limit the effective CSA of the metal that is conducting.




#22
Dec2312, 07:05 PM

P: 3,842

Actually what I presented in the thread I posted is not about resistivity, it is about the EM nature of signal making the current follow a path different than the conventional Ohm's Law prediction that most current takes on the path of least resistance at the given voltage.
Regarding to the KVL, If you look at the long thread of Levin, there is a collision between KVL and Electromagnetics. It cannot no be both true. If you read my experiment, there is no way that I can think of to measure the voltage without being affected by the magnetic induction. If any of the EE here can definitively proof Levin is wrong, we might be able to poke a hole in Maxwell's equation.............But I won't hold my breath on this!!! But this will be big if we can proof Levin wrong. I still have everything for the original experiment, if someone comes up with an idea, I can still play with it. But do read my posts on the thread, I did really cover a lot on the arguments. 



#23
Dec2312, 08:00 PM

P: 3,842

Hey guys, if you really think Levin is wrong, we can go in again. I was alone, out gunned, out theory. If there are a few of us, it might be different. To the best of my understanding, Levin's argument is E is no longer conservative under varying B field, whereby KVL don't hold. And this is according to Maxwell's equation:
[tex]\nabla X \vec E=\frac {\partial \vec B}{\partial t}[/tex] I tried so hard to say because of [itex]EMF=\frac {\partial \Phi}{\partial t}[/itex], you have to include this as a distributed voltage source. If you take into consideration of the distributed voltage source, KVL holds. That will be something to win this argument......That Maxwell's equation need to consider the induced voltage source and the definition of conservative field has to be modified. 



#24
Dec2312, 08:17 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 3,134

yungman  i don't do well at higher math.
But i did think Levin was misapplying KVL when he ignored some induction. Where's that thread ?  i'll see if i can get my alleged brain around it but be advised  in math skills i dont even come up to your knees. And what do you mean "at the given voltage"? old jim 



#25
Dec2312, 08:30 PM

P: 3,842

Ha ha. I know curiosity will eventually get one of you.....hopefully more of you!!!
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...3575&highlight And at post #224 on page 14, I did my experiment and draw the equivalent circuit. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...453575&page=14 Then in post #226 and #242, I explained the path where the ground lead of the scope probe got voltage induced and thereby have different reading as I swing the ground lead of the probe. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...453575&page=16 



#26
Dec2312, 08:36 PM

P: 3,842

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=659307 The return current path follow right under the trace no matter how you snake the trace around. 



#27
Dec2412, 06:39 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,020

I will expand on the technical issues that I alluded to before, then address some additional issues.
1) The reason that the integral of [tex] \oint_c \vec E\cdot d\vec l [/tex] is zero is not that the area of the path goes to zero. It is zero because the line integral of E parallel to and on the outside of the boundary separating material 1 from 2 becomes equal and opposite to that along the inside of the boundary, as the separation between the two paths approaches zero. Thus the two contributions cancel. 2) In the last integral in post #4, J is current density, not surface current as you state; it is allowed to cross the boundary, and it does not have the dimensions of surface current density. Your discussion about EM waves seems to have little direct relevance to the question, furthermore. Evaluating the integral gives [tex] \vec{J}\cdot\vec{m} \Delta l = \vec{K}\cdot\vec{m}, [/tex] where K is surface current density and m is the normal to the surface that is bounded by the integration curve. This equation gives rise to the boundary condition on H_tangential that the original poster asked about, namely [tex]\vec{n}\times(\vec{H_2}  \vec{H_1})=\vec{K} .[/tex] 3) Conduction does not occur by electrons jumping from one atom to the next. 4) Current (or conduction) is always spoken of as being driven ultimately by potential energy differences. Hence current in a chargeneutral wire is the gradient of a potential, leading to Ohm’s law being written [tex]\vec{J}=\sigma \vec{E}[/tex] rather than the other way around. Furthermore, we always measure "IV" curves where V is the independent variable. As a result, drift velocity increases in copper samples of greater purity and decreases in dirtier samples. 5) Post 6 gives a rather roundabout argument that a timeinvariant form of Kirchoff’s laws cannot be applied to a time varying circuit. This, of course, merely restates the condition that gave rise to the original question. The answer to the question is to form Kirchoff’s laws to include the timevarying terms in Maxwell’s equations. Including dB/dt introduces into the circuit some emf’s due to self and mutual induction, as the_emi_guy has already pointed out. Including dD/dt allows the treatment of displacement currents in capacitors. 6) “Electromagnetic is the most difficult subject in EE by a mile.” There are topics (stability of a system, information capacity of a multipath scattering communication channel, maximum entropy spectral analysis, error correction coding, etc.) that others could claim are much more difficult than the problems we are dealing with here. Now some nontechnical comments. yungman, I have asked you in previous threads not to post erroneous answers in areas where you are not an expert. You state here, instead, that you post what you like and want other people to correct you, and that you like to argue with the corrections. This is counterproductive from many standpoints. I'll give three: 1. It is tedious for those (myself in this case, others in previous threads of yours) whom you expect to a) wade through your voluminous posts, b) try to correct your errors and misconceptions, and c) then argue with you. 2. You spread confusion and misinformation. In this case, you confused the original poster CheyenneXia, at the very least. 3. You undermine your own credibility, and also make it less likely that experts will be interested in engaging with you. I believe restraint is the better approach. 



#28
Dec2412, 06:47 PM

Mentor
P: 39,575

Your concerns are valid marcusl. Sorry yungman, please take his feedback to heart.




#29
Dec2412, 06:48 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,020

Also I'll point out that you have completely hijacked this thread so it is focused on a topic taken from your own, different thread.




#30
Dec2512, 12:47 AM

P: 3,842

Condescending comments have no place in this forum. If you don't agree, state the reason. Attached is an image of page 430. It is blur as I have to shrink the size to 300K. The equation in question is 97b for the upper plate. Ignore all my hand written notes, just read the text of the book. The second image is my drawing according to the figure from the book, I added color and more detail. The figure at the bottom of the text page is Fig.93 if you care to read the text. [tex] \hat a_y\times \vec H=\vec J_{su}[/tex] 



#31
Dec2512, 05:13 AM

P: 3,842




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Electromagnetics questions  Advanced Physics Homework  0  
Electromagnetics Questions  Engineering, Comp Sci, & Technology Homework  5  
Several optics/electromagnetics questions.  General Physics  0  
Few electromagnetics questions  Advanced Physics Homework  4  
couple of electromagnetics questions  Introductory Physics Homework  6 