Re: Confused by a derivation.

["RAUBER, JOEL" <JOEL_RAUBER@SDSTATE.EDU>]

Ditto, to what John said.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John S. Denker [mailto:jsd@MONMOUTH.COM]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:15 PM
> To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
> Subject: Re: Confused by a derivation.
>
>
> "RAUBER, JOEL" wrote:
> >
> ...
> > When you think in these terms, you find that conductors
> don't such much
> > provide impenetrable barriers to E field, but rather
> provide a source of
> > non-zero charge density that provides electric field that
> superposes in a
> > "destructive" way with that of the sources (from which you
> are presumably
> > shielding regions of space, e.g. with a Faraday cage).
>
> I'm glad Joel agrees with me.
> And I still agree with what I wrote.
>
> But let me say that the point of view Michael E.
> advocated is not really wrong;  it's just a
> different point of view.
>
> In particular, if I underderstand where M.E. is going,
> it winds up expressing the Maxwell equations in
> terms of E and D and B and H, with a constituative
> equation connected D to E, and another connecting
> H to B.  This is not wrong.  Some people consider
> it slightly old-fashioned.  It simplifies certain
> problems, but it complexifies certain others.
> Whenever I get confused, I run home to the E and B
> formulation (no D and no H) which is the way I was
> taught.  I recommend the E and B (only) approach,
> especially for intro courses, but your mileage
> may vary.