What a great way to make the point how ignoring key circuit components changes the entire experiment. Bravo.

@fromjesse

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

Man! Gotta love practical, real world based people. Great work, I just finished your last video on this subject. Now off to hit that subscribe button!

Wow, Good job!

I am convinced that those who understand physics as Professors do, could throw equations around that would equal a half foot long. Having said that then I am saying that you can play or get to the nitty gritty. The proof won’t be in circles around batteries.

For a moment , I thought you were seious ! Good parody video.. Loved it. Walter Lewin was being an ass !!

Do it all again and move the cells about check the resistors as well. So just move the cells about.

WRONG. The voltmeters are NOT connected to the same points. You can't conclude that KVL doesn't work. you are making conclusions from a false premise.

@fromjesse

3 жыл бұрын

You are correct. And Professor Lewin, formerly of MIT, is also wrong when he claims that KVL does not work because he also is making his conclusion from a false premise.

@liendatt8347

3 жыл бұрын

Chill guys, we are all here for the love of science and nothing personal. In my opinion, the validity of KVL depends on its definition. The reason why I'm starting with the definition is that if we can't agree on it then there is no point in talking about KVL. Kirchoff's voltage law: The closed line integral of E.dl is zero. Following the above definition and using vector calculus, a direct consequence is that the potential difference between two points is always the same regardless of the path of integration. However, experiments have shown that the voltage between 2 points can be different in the presence of varying magnetic fields thus making KVL invalid. Dr. Lewin has demonstrated it in class and he is not the first person to do that. Somebody asked how the voltmeters know which path to follow while computing the voltage between 2 points. For this, I suggest you read a paper written by Robert H. Romer on the topic "what do voltmeters measure". If, after reading that paper, you are still unable to understand why Dr. Lewin placed one voltmeter to the right and the other to left then let me know I will explain. Conclusion: Dr. Lewin's experiment is legitimate there is no trickery involved there isn't any probing error. It is just that KVL is a special case of Faraday's Law. It really makes me sad that almost all physics books and their authors get it wrong.

@fromjesse

3 жыл бұрын

@@copernicofelinis hey friend, I tested a setup like Lewins, but I correctly probed, and KVL held up just fine. See here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/oHWnvKiJaKbMqM4.html If you probe correctly, and actually apply KVL (which Lewin did neither) it does work on his setup. Conversely, if you refuse to probe correctly and refuse to account for the inducted voltage in your volt meter leads, then not only does KVL fail, but so does Maxwels equation and every other form of science. You can't measure or do science or do physics if you have wild unknown unmodeled influences in your test equipment.

@fromjesse

3 жыл бұрын

@@kpaxxapk6397 hey friend, I tested a setup like Lewins, but I correctly probed, and KVL held up just fine. See here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/oHWnvKiJaKbMqM4.html If you probe correctly, and actually apply KVL (which Lewin did neither) it does work on his setup. Conversely, if you refuse to probe correctly and refuse to account for the inducted voltage in your volt meter leads, then not only does KVL fail, but so does Maxwels equation and every other form of science. You can't measure or do science or do physics if you have wild unknown unmodeled influences in your test equipment.

@fromjesse

3 жыл бұрын

@@kpaxxapk6397 Not all PHD Physics professors agree with Lewin. I'm assuming you've read the paper by Dr. Kirk McDonnald of Princeton? kirkmcd.princeton.edu/examples/lewin.pdf He says in that paper that Lewin is using "misdirection" (which is something a stage magician does) and he also says that Lewin is using a non-standard version of KVL. Dr. McDonnald concludes his footnote with "Of course, use of an obsolete version of a “law” can lead to apparent paradoxes." He's not even granting that it's a paradox, but only an apparent paradox! Dr. McDonnald also says "In Lewin’s example, a meter reading, does not equal the voltage drop between the tips of its leads ...." So again, Lewin claimed that the volt meters were connected at the same point, which he said to trick the audience into believing they were reading the voltage difference at the tips of the leads. But it was a lie. Dr. McDonnald says it was NOT reading the voltage at the tips of the leads. Dr. McDonnald winds up saying "Lewin’s circuit is within the range of applicability of Kirchhoff’s loop equations, which can be used to predict measurements by the “voltmeters” in the experiment. " Or did you read the paper by Dr. John W. Belcher of MIT? www.electroboom.com/share/FaradaysLaw_Mehdi.pdf Dr. Belcher ends up citing Feynman, claiming that KVL does hold. He ends up saying "In this sense, KVL holds, as argued by Mehdi Sadaghdar ..." So help me out here please. We've got two Phd physics professors from two of the greatest universities in the USA, one of them citing Feynman, who is one of the 10 greatest physicists of all time in the world - with the other 9 being Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Galileo Galilei, Paul Dirac, Erwin Schrödinger, and Ernest Rutherford. And the other of these great physics professor I've cited says Lewin is using an obsolete version of KVL, using misdirection (which is a form of intentional deception), and who calls Lewin's paradox an "Apparent paradox." So you're telling me they are all wrong? And then there's my own measurement that KVL holds just fine if you use your volt meter honestly: kzread.info/dash/bejne/oHWnvKiJaKbMqM4.html At the end of the day, you aren't gonna make it in the real world of engineering if you think a volt meter cannot measure voltage accurately in Lewin's setup. It can, and it does. Lewin did NOT tell the audience how he had is volt meter leads run. If he had, KVL would have held fine for him too. But he loves a dog and pony show, and he put on a good one that day. Unfortunately, he also lied to his audience. He claimed the volt meters were identical and were connected at the same point. But only one of those two claims can be true at the same time.

The Rectifier!!! ======>>>

I am pretty sure this is a very rare case where a physics professor needs to bend to the "authority" of experiment and logic. Your beautiful "clock" experiment seems conclusive to me (because you carefully avoided induction in the leads to the meters). If so, I hope Lewin shows his love of science in the end. I will admire him all the more for it.

I can't believe this stupid video is my second most watched for 2020.

@zeno2712

2 жыл бұрын

That's because it's not a stupid video! :-) I've only recently come across various videos about Lewin's problem (and watched Mehdi's and a few other videos) and it was clear to me that Lewin is just plain wrong - any engineer with her/his salt would spot the problem with current induced into the probe leads. I like how you've broken this down to a simple demonstration that makes that easier to understand.

@mickvall4881

2 жыл бұрын

@@zeno2712 No. Sorry, but the circuit made in this video has nothing to do with the the Lewin’s one. Here, we have batteries along which there is a gradient of electrical potential V. There is no variable magnetic field. Also, the E.dl integral through a particular path is a potential difference in this case. The two points are not the same, so we can read two different values. In the Lewin’s experiment, the two voltmeters are connected to the same points, E.dl integral is no longer equal to the potential difference between the two points and is path dependent : the two readings are not the same. In wires, there is NO potential gradient, so battery model using is not relevant. (Obviously, if you measure the voltage (E.dl integral) by probing 2 points of a wire, you read zero. The model used here suggest that there is a gradient of the potential V along wires , which is wrong.

@fromjesse

2 жыл бұрын

@@mickvall4881 If you understand English (which I realize you may not) the dialogue in the opening of the video clearly states that this is parody/Comedy/Joke to be taken as a joke, unless you happen to be named Dr. Walter Lewin. Of course there's no significant voltage drop across my wires nor is there a changing magnetic field in this video, IT IS DC! What this video does is illustrate BAD PROBING. Really bad probing. So relax, and laugh, and let me know if you cannot find my video where I use a changing magnetic field.

@mickvall4881

2 жыл бұрын

@@fromjesse Ok ! I didn't understand that was an ironical video. So, Sorry ! I should have seen the video with more concentration !

Hello Mr. fromjesse; this video (comparing with batteries) reminds me about my very first reaction to Mr. Lewin about 3 years ago. This is what I wrote in his reaction forum from Lewin's video "lect 16" : kzread.info/dash/bejne/oHuFxKNrmtrRh6w.html: Mr. lewin gave me his standard answer that I didn't understood it. This was for me the trigger to react by making my own video. It is clear that you are triggered too by making more videos about this. Maybe you should number them. Best regards, Dirk

@fromjesse

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you! And it's not just that Mr. Lewin is ignoring the voltage induced in his probe wires, a couple of his disciples (who are actually very nice and genuine people) have been trying to show me that I'm wrong and that Mr. Lewin is correct, so that's why I made this video to hopefully help people to see the trickery in ignoring a voltage source in an analysis.

Now you're justbeing mean, but right!🤣

You seek to emulate the Lewin experiment, but you have strayed too far. As you know, Lewin used a toroid to induce emf's by magnetic induction. Your emulation involves the arguable point that the batteries are equivalent, which is unfortunate. Also your sketch of the Lewin experiment appears to show the loop disposed around the *periphery* of the toroid, whereas it should pass through the *centre* of the toroid.

@fromjesse

3 ай бұрын

This video is satire showing how Lewin's claims are based on fallacy.

@fromjesse

3 ай бұрын

If you want to see my serious non-satire video on the topic, check it out: kzread.info/dash/bejne/oHWnvKiJaKbMqM4.html

چی برای خودت باتری ردیف کردی .قانون مثل قانون فیثاغورس همیشه درست است گیرم یه جایی یه طوری بوده روش اندازه گیری مثلا متفاوت بوده خوب همه اینها درست اینها یک یافته است و اصل قانون را نمی‌تواند از بین ببرد .فقط باید در راستای قانون باید این یافته‌ها را برسی کرد نه اینکه تا یک ولتمتر یه عددی را نشان داد تو بوق و کرنا کرد که این قانون غلط است.

@fromjesse

2 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, I do not speak Persian, and Google translate isn't much help. But this video is meant as a joke, like comedy.

@asmahoseini4393

2 жыл бұрын

Show this circuit to someone who knows ohm low it will be very funny 😄

@asmahoseini4393

2 жыл бұрын

there is tow different corent which does not effect to each other and you have tow different numbers in each voltmeter. so wath

@fromjesse

2 жыл бұрын

This video is a comedy response to Dr Lewin who does not understand anything other than ohms law, because he thinks that all voltage drops are purely ohmic.

@asmahoseini4393

2 жыл бұрын

Ohm low is always rights.

Jesse, do you want to prove there is an inductance in the probe wires with batteries? The video here is only showing how wrong you reasoning is. Now you are on the probe wire team. 😂

@fromjesse

2 жыл бұрын

You do realize that this video is SATIRE, right? In English, Satire is like COMEDY, or JOKES, or I dunno, does google translate help? komedie, grap?