Re: non-potential voltage

[Robert A Cohen <bbq@ESU.EDU>]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2000, Michael Edmiston wrote:

> [snip]

> It's amazing to me that even though I basically have known and taught points
> (1) through (4) for a considerable number of years, this current list
> discussion has only now brought point (5) to my attention.  I naively called
> the induced emf a potential difference without it ever registering in my
> mind that this is a contradiction in word usage.
>
> However, now I am no longer sure what words to use.  I cannot say I am fond
> of John calling this "voltage" because I still view voltage as a slang word
> for electric potential difference.  I have never seen a definition of
> voltage that does not tie it to potential difference.  Am I missing
> something here?

I have very little expertise in this field, so take the following comments
FWIW.

As long as there is an element in place, the induced emf could lead to a
potential difference across it (e.g., a solenoid or loop where the two
ends are not connected), no?  So, we could infer the induced emf by
measuring the potential difference.

I like to say "induced circulation of the E-field" myself.  Quite a
mouthful but is this incorrect?

----------------------------------------------------------
| Robert Cohen               Department of Physics       |
|                            East Stroudsburg University |
| bbq@esu.edu                East Stroudsburg, PA  18301 |
| http://www.esu.edu/~bbq/   (570) 422-3428              |
----------------------------------------------------------