Talk:Hering's Paradox

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: This page may be overall OK. However, two big issues. First refs 1-3 need to be changed to the Wikipedia format. Second, the whole Explanation section is unsourced so appears to be original research (which is not permitted on Wikipedia).

Ldm1954 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: The experiment and its description are far from being current research. The outcome of the experiment is intuitively clear as soon as you put yourself in the magnet's rest system. In this case, two wires simply move in a field-free space and scratch the magnet a little. Why should a voltage arise under these circumstances?

The actual benefit of the experiment is an educational one, as it allows students (and teachers) to check whether they have really understood the Maxwell-Faraday equation and its application. The frame of reference used in the explanation "punishes" errors in the application of this law (and the flux rule) most easily.

The author Grabinski criticizes the usual textbook presentations for either avoiding the difficulties or applying the law of induction incorrectly. I have therefore decided not to avoid the difficulties and have applied Faraday's law of induction correctly. For demonstration, I used some film material I created about 12 years ago and have had it reworked. But no, this is not research; at least it should not be -- neither in 2012 nor in 2024 :-) --Michael Lenz (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is the abstract of Grabinski's article. As you can see, the paper is not original literature, but secondary literature:

Hering's experiment: Myths and facts

Contents The experiment on magnetic induction known from KARL HERING (1908) is presented in various textbooks as an example of the pitfalls FARADAY'S law can exhibit for the case of moving matter. Unfortunately, most of these presentations are - putting it mildly - at the very least, problematical. Either, FARADAY'S law is very often misinterpreted in a way that only leads to further confusion, or only such reference systems are initially chosen that avoid the need of an explanation and are thus of limited value only.

Therefore, the aim of this paper is not only to give a clear description of the physics inherent in HERINC'S experiment but also to clarify most of the misconceptions currently present in the literature. In addition, its objective is to present an acceptable and appropriate interpretation of the experiment with respect to the application of FARADAY'S laws. --Michael Lenz (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Dear @Michael Lenz,

Because there are no sources for the explanation it appears as original research. What you probably need is something like

"Various explanations have been given in textbooks [refs]. However, as pointed out by Grabinski [] these have some issues of both rigor and clarity. The following analysis is based upon Grabinski's work, with,..(here include any differences)."

This now clearly indicates that this is not OR; I did not think it was, but it appeared to be -- and could have led to deletion.

N,B., wordsmith the above as needed, but it has to be clear that this is based upon established science. Otherwise, for instance, someone with an undergrad physics degree may decide it is OR and delete the whole explanation -- I have seen things like that occur. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)