Dear Reader,
Only 5 working days left and I have a mountain of chores. Right now I feel like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
I just need to make comment on Professor Lewin's Non-Conservative Fields. I am not sure that his lectures, related to this, are still available on youtube. If they are I'll ask my friend to upload the link. If they've been withdrawn it's because there was an error in the configuration of his circuit. Unless it was deliberately included - simply to highlight a potential. I don't know. In effect, he had two resistors in parallel on a closed loop. And he had two oscilloscope probes placed that they shared a common ground rail - one on either side of those resistors. Effectively the oscilloscopes were in antiphase to each other. Then he applied an induced voltage to that circuit. And the voltage readings across both resistors were - predictably - shown, the one as a negative and the other as a positive. Then he claimed that this was evidence of a breach in Kirchhoff's Laws. Clearly they were not. But. What he actually highlighted was this simple fact. If and when you get two currents in antiphase to each other on two separate rails of a single circuit - then you would, inevitably breach Kirchoff's assumption of conservation.
So. Again. When and if you have this configuration - if a single simple circuit has two distinct and opposing currents - then you are definitely in breach of that conservation number. But - as he also pointed out - one would not be in breach of Faraday's Laws. That, dear Reader, is what our circuit shows. We have something that clearly shows that Faraday's Laws hold - even when Kirchhoff's don't. Therefore are our results still allowable within Classical reference. And Kirchhoff's Laws - hopefully, will be relagated to a 'rule' rather than a Law. And Kirchhoff's argument conforms to a required co-efficient of performance that is limited to 1. Faraday never imposed any such restriction. His Law simply defines the Laws of Induction. And our experiment shows us that Faraday's Law exceeds Kirchhoff's rule.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
