Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Let's start a new convention Teaching Magnetism

At 11:55 AM -0700 7/8/03, John Mallinckrodt wrote:

>I'm a bit lost here -- how does this conflict or confuse G's law? This
is because I don't follow the "fact" that field goes into and leaves
from a pole. I thought the idea of pole was it was a place where field
enamated from or disappeared into, not both.

That IS the idea and it is why the concept of a "magnetic pole" is at
least a little tricky since lines of magnetic induction do not (as
far we know today) have beginnings or ends.

I'm still trying to see the confusion with G's law. An Out 'pole'
within the gaussean surface WOULD make a mathematically positive
contribution to the total flux. Some or all of the Out poles
contribution could be counterascted by any In poles that also are
within the surface in question.

If your objection is that G's Law can be confused by the concept of
Poles, then I agree. I am suggesting that IF poles remain in the
students science vocabulary, then it would be better for them to be
considered as being Out and In poles (or Ludwik's choice of Head and
Tail also has that nice warm intuitive feel that we all seek so
diligently ;-)
--
.-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-
\ / \ / \ N / \ C / \ S / \ S / \ M / \ / \ /
`-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-'
Chuck Britton Education is what is left when
britton@ncssm.edu you have forgotten everything
North Carolina School of Science & Math you learned in school.
(919) 416-2762 Albert Einstein, 1936