Re: [Phys-L] circular definition of "success" .... was: standard DC circuits

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 11/29/2013 10:52 AM, Larry Smith wrote:
> Am I understanding correctly that you take issue with Müller's first
> sentence in his abstract: "Surface charges play a major role in DC
> circuits because they help generate the electric field and potential
> distributions necessary to move the charges around the circuit"?

Actually, AFAICT I agree with what Müller is saying.  I haven't 
read the paper super-closely, but it appears he is using the 
conventional, reasonable, simple-yet-accurate methods that lots 
of people (including me) have been using for eons.

One could perhaps slightly /clarify/ his first sentence to say
that the surface charges play a major role *IF* you choose to
rip open the black box and delve into the microscopic physics.

That's a big IF because for a great many purposes, one can design
and use DC circuits without delving into the microscopic physics.
You are free to delve if you want to, but you are not required to.

  In contrast, if you move away from the DC limit to higher and
  higher frequencies, the physics becomes more and more important.

Personally, I think that circuit physics is nifty, including the
DC limit.  Certainly it is something we should discuss amongst 
ourselves.  You could sell it as a foundation-stone in preparation 
for later studies of RF circuits.  However, it is not at all obvious 
to me that you can sell it as having any real value in connection 
with "standard DC circuits" at the high-school level ... which 
was the original topic of discussion.  The standard macroscopic 
black-box engineering techniques work just fine if all you are 
trying to do is design and operate "standard DC circuits".

Most of all, I insist that Müller gets right a whole bunch of 
bedrock physics that the _Matter and Interaction_ book gets wrong.