Maxwell Equations

[@bmacdoug]

An elegant demonstration of getting from Maxwell's equations to Kirchhoff's laws. Thank-you.

[@ViniciusDaherCampelo]

Thank you very much! As an electrical engineering grad student, these videos help me a lot! Greetings from Brazil😄

[@TheFarmacySeedsNetwork]

Thanks! Another great video and explanation!

[@yahyagalal8142]

Nice work 👏

[@ShredEngineerPhD]

Hey man, I just found your channel. This video is great, especially the last part where you show how the KVL/KCL are limiting case of Maxwell's equations. Didn't know that. :) Although I have to add that I'm glad the subtitles work well because of your pronounciation (I'm german, so I would probably not do it better :D), the video was easy to understand!

[@TheSiGuyEN]

thank you

[@OneSalamander]

I’d like to second this comment. This video is done really well. And the KVL/KCL explanation was done elegantly. I can’t wait to get through all these videos, they really make the math come alive. I wish I had these when I started my undergraduate. But I’m glad to get to reflect and review with them now.

[@tanvirfarhan5585]

dammmnnn.. you nailed it broo ! cool

[@paulmitchell4421]

where is the rest of the equations with nabla pointing to the left and with nabla pointing to the right? why only a special case?

[@TheSiGuyEN]

which part you're talking about?

[@paulmitchell4421]

@@TheSiGuyEN all of them. the operator Nabla - the triangle - originally Maxwell created versions with left handed Nabla amd Right handed Nabla accounting for Polarity. they are complementary conjugates. Do you have the guts to run the equations with those variables including the cases where they cancel out.??? Do you have what it takes to understand the outcomes and repercussions??

[@xxxuselesspricksxxx1481]

@@TheSiGuyENI think the stuff he talks about is that originally Maxwell made 20 equations, but they were later simplyfied into 4 by Heaviside

[@WalksWithBooks]

(My feedback as requested through Habitica STEM Guild) 0:22 "Differantial" should be "Differential". 🎨🍕🍕🍱🍱 Exploit the 1:3 ratio in your presentation space to better engage your audience retentive awareness. For instance, the reference chart at 0:08 would be well placed on the left or right 1/3rd or 2/7ths of the presentation space. It should work as a psychological anchor and compass for the viewers. My guess is this will keep attention from wandering outside the bounds of the media when attention is inevitably interrupted, lapsed, or waning. In a similar instance, during the visualizations (like at 0:56) it would help to have the relevant formulae (like from 0:53) to have remained. If I only see a formula for a second or two and then stare at a fancy moving animation -while trying to continue listening to an explanation- I'm guaranteed to completely forget whatever formula I just attempted to learn. (2:26) I'm noticing that I'm having a hard time reading the formulae again. I think the problem is that the script assumes I learned to represent the concepts encapsulated by the terms with the same character-set. I didn't. Not so much a mark against the video as it is a common problem educators face in our privatized and fractious education system. 4:55 First use of the term "curl"? Not used again until 10:44 🤔🤔 Might I suggest adding in-video links to videos that explain these other concepts? Might increase the value of your content but it might also mess up your analytics. 6:12 May want to describe what Faraday's Law is governing. Not sure who your intended audience is, so I'm not sure if it's expected they have a rote understanding of it. 🚸🚸🚸🎓🎓🎓🛠🛠🛠🎮🎮🎮 6:26 "... so on and so forth" This phrase is very disorienting, particularly when combined with the rapid-fire description of the relationship between Faraday's Law and Gaussian Dynamics. "... and so on" shows up again at 10:11. I would suggest "a change in [X] will always be expressed in a change in [Y]. It removes the kinda recursive explanation feeling I'm getting by eliminating the iterative nature of the expressed mathemechanic. 6:41 Use of "space derivative" has me drawing a blank. Is this another reference to the closed scope context being used previously when describing the area of flux interaction/determination? I tried to research it on my own but the phrase is used too inconsistently across too many subjects to understand exactly what you're encapsulating with that/those terms. I'll amend this statement if I figure it out. Ahh, got it at 8:08 when I remembered we're focusing on the nature of the inverse square. 6:48 "free space" finally comes up. Good. I have a bone to pick with its definition... 😈😈 7:28 Not sure why we sat through a slow and silent rendering of a fourier approx of a unit sinusoid but w/e. No threat to my GPU. 8:06 "...by simple math manipulation..." Again, not sure what level your audience (or I) am at but I don't think anything going on in this video should be described as "simple math". 📡📡 End of video: the recommended next video appears to be blocking the background where all I can determine to be written is "Your [illegible] is important." (?Auto-)Captions Problems: 2:38 Not sure if the narration was "electrostatic bond" (what I heard) or "electrostatic one" (what I read). 3:50 "Maxwell" is written as "max will". 4:42 "Ampere's law" turned into "emperor's law". 🤭🤭 5:52 "displacement current" (heard) written as "replacement current" (read) 9:49 the second "Kirchhoff" was recorded as "kirk of". 🚀🚀 Also happened at 10:35.

[@TheSiGuyEN]

Thanks for your informative feedback. I really appreciate that "space derivative" simply means the derivative with respect to space for instance in rectangular coordinate system space derivative means the derivative with respect to x, y, and z direction; in spherical coordinate system it means the derivative with respect to r, θ, and φ. Subtitles added successfully

[@mastershooter64]

how do I join the habitica STEM guild?

[@frankdimeglio8216]

​@@TheSiGuyEN WHY AND HOW FRANK MARTIN DIMEGLIO HAS FUNDAMENTALLY REVOLUTIONIZED PHYSICS: TIME is FULLY consistent WITH WHAT IS E=MC2, AS TIME is NECESSARILY possible/potential AND actual ON/IN BALANCE; AS ELECTROMAGNETISM/energy is CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY proven to be gravity (ON/IN BALANCE). Consider TIME AND time dilation ON BALANCE. What is E=MC2 IS WHAT IS GRAVITY. Consider what is the orange (AND setting) Sun ON BALANCE. It IS the SAME SIZE as what is THE EYE. NOW, consider what is the fully illuminated (AND setting/WHITE) MOON !!!! The rotation of WHAT IS THE MOON matches the revolution. The stars AND PLANETS are POINTS in the night sky. c squared CLEARLY (AND NECESSARILY) does represent a dimension of SPACE ON BALANCE !!! INDEED, consider what is THE EYE !!! Magnificent. NOW, consider why and how it is (ON BALANCE) that there is something instead of nothing. Great. The bulk density of WHAT IS THE MOON IS comparable to that of (volcanic) basaltic lavas ON THE EARTH. The density of lava IS about THREE times that of what is water ON BALANCE. LOOK directly overhead at what is the TRANSLUCENT AND BLUE sky. Don't forget about THE EYE ON BALANCE. (The Earth is ALSO BLUE.) The density of pure water IS HALF of that of what is packed sand/wet packed sand ON BALANCE !!!! The diameter of WHAT IS THE MOON IS about ONE QUARTER (at 27 percent) of that of what is THE EARTH ON BALANCE !! Great. ACCORDINGLY, ON BALANCE, WE MULTIPLY ONE HALF TIMES ONE THIRD in order to obtain the surface gravity of WHAT IS THE MOON in DIRECT comparison WITH WHAT IS THE EARTH/ground. (The maria then occupy, predictably, one third of the near side of what is THE MOON ON BALANCE.) Notice that the blue Moon IS INVISIBLE ON BALANCE. GREAT. So, consider what constitutes (or is) the orange Sun, ON BALANCE, AS TWO THIRDS TIMES ONE QUARTER IS ALSO ONE SIXTH !!! GREAT. AGAIN, consider what is THE EYE ON BALANCE; AS E=MC2 IS GRAVITY. BALANCE AND COMPLETENESS GO HAND IN HAND. IT ALL CLEARLY makes perfect sense ON BALANCE. By Frank Martin DiMeglio

[@RoGeorgeRoGeorge]

@@TheSiGuyEN If you follow all the recipes, the danger is you'll get the same food, meaning yet another boring class presentation. Apart from the typos, my advice would be to follow your personal preferences and style style first, rather than following the established guidelines. Your instincts seem to produce better videos.

[@abcdef2069]

at 4:00 Electric field-flux changes by moving charges, but show me why E-flux may be 0 in a wire or not. (e=fermi electron, c= capacitor) e c e c e c e c e c e c e c e c, there are empty spaces between fermi electrons that can serve as capacitors that can create the circular B-field even before the electron arrives. BUT because of the E-flux contributions that come from the front e- and the back e- CAN be canceled to be all zero, but show me how