physicsjock said:
The only thing I didn't do was write it using tex?
Don't type in tex. It lags my browser. Just plain typing is fine.
physicsjock said:
Everything I have stated is correct,
The K and J are for bound currents, which is what I said..
I don't know why you thought they were integrals, or why you integrated them.
You would have to integrate K as well not just the RHS and I'm not sure what you were doing with the J.
If there were integrals I would have wrote int, but I avoided writing those equations.
...
I was just trying to explain what the point of it was. What really is just an easy method to find B and M.
Okay. In that case, please explain to me me what
K=
M×
n is. I've never heard of it. What is it used for? I integrated them because you said
"K= M×n, all vectors, n being normal vector to surface"
All vectors implies an integral, since
n can vary across the surface. The only way to account for this is by
K = ∫
M×d
S,
kind of like how
F = ∫i d
l×
B for a wire varying in space. For comparison purposes, the above integral is equivalent to
K = -∫ d
S×
M, but I've never seen anyone integrate a surface this way. It doesn't even make sense. This is like a line integral with a cross product. Maybe you can integrate around the boundary of an open surface? I don't know. Usually, when we work with surfaces, we put them in regular surface integrals (or double integrals) to find the flux, but that results in a scalar. As you've defined it, it seems like
K is a vector, which is why I got confused.
I thought by J, you meant
j, the current density vector. (Or at least some variation of
j, like
jmag, which is different from the
j that equals curl(
B).)
physicsjock said:
The whole point of those equations is to make it easier to determine M and B..
Um. I'm still not sure how it's easier. All three fields,
B,
M, and
H are
linearly related to each other. If two things have such simple relationships, then they are obviously described fully by the same mathematics.
physicsjock said:
Your initial post made it seem you were asking WHAT IS H,
If you said you had already dealt with it before, I wouldn't have bothered.
I was just trying to explain what the point of it was. What really is just an easy method to find B and M.
And I'm saying you did a bad job at explaining. :I
physicsjock said:
Yes you said you knew what B is, but really, anyone in any field of first year science knows what it is.
That's why it's a good starting point if you genuinely felt like teaching the subject.
physicsjock said:
What would the point of giving a derivation be in a online physics forum if you could just look on wikipedia or in a book?
Why would I give a full derivation of H and all the calculus identities for a small question about "what H represents"?
I don't know. Why would you mention anything at all if you're not going to make sure the person you're explaining to would fully understand what you're talking about? Isn't the point of PF to provide a medium for people to teach others for free? Are you teaching here or just flaunting knowledge?
physicsjock said:
The reason no one has answered your post is because it's the letter H is just convenient. If there was a reason for it, it would be all over the internet. The only reason i answered this post was because I miss interpreted your question as a valid question for what it actually is.
There's a reason for everything. If the answer were all over the internet or it were obvious, I wouldn't have asked. I know you misinterpreted, but I couldn't resist myself from posting further because you did such a bad job at your pseudo-teaching. I'm not saying that I'm the best teacher myself, but at least you could try.
physicsjock said:
Each of the equations I wrote were taking for Griffiths Intro do electro dynamics. Maybe you should have a read of it or something it's the book they use through first year EM at the uni i attend.
I use Fundamentals of E/M by Arthur Kip. It's a very good book that is very well thought out, easy to learn from, and covers some very deep mathematics. I've looked at Griffiths before. I like Kip by far, but I don't think the comparison is fair, since I've been learning out of Kip and not out of Griffiths.