I will be happy to do so. It is a bit late for me right now. Basically, induction can be calculated to determine the resulting EMF or the resulting current. Both formula are virtually the same. The difference is one uses the 'apparent' Gaussian surfaces facing each other (two loops parallel to one another = full surfaces facing each other). The other uses the previous plus the COS and/or Theta or 'the comparative angle' between them. It has been stated that this angle is already part of common formula for induction. It is but it assumes changing the relative angle only varies the relative surface area. I should say, it assumes the change in relative surface area is the only thing causing a variation of coupling. When the meter and the loop of wire connecting it to the two points mid to the resistors is directly above or below the coil zero voltage is measured because there induction is cancelled by the opposing two meter branches. If the resistor loop had its own battery then the meter would measure the same all the way around  above, left, below & right. Since we are only dealing with induction (& path dependent) the meter reading depends upon the path the current takes. Phase is shifted. The difference between the two readings (.1 & +.9) is the expected 1V. A measured potential is the difference between two points not the total readings taken across segments in series  when it is path dependent. The meter measures what is on the wires connected to the meter  not what is at the other end of the wires. In EM induction the measured values will depend upon the location of the wires/meter of the measuring device because we are dealing with nonconservative fields(path dependent fields). With such a circuit the most important thing is to look at the difference between measured values. The answer is the same as if KVL is applied to a path independent(conservative) circuit. KVL is satisfied because it can not be applied to path independent fields. KVL was only meant to be applied to static potentials or snippets of time showing static potentials of conservative fields. Induced EMF across points in a series loop (secondary of a transformer) may not be added together to match the applied potential. The only way to get the right answer is to find the difference. Like I said, it is late and I rambled. This isn't even the tough one. I still have problems where we find Faraday's induction is a subset of Lorentz and not always correct (at least, when it is applied where it shouldn't be applied, like KVL  so I'm told ) This is an odd position for me. Here I am.... in defense of accepted theory. Very strange feeling

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."  Einstein
"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning."  Werner Heisenberg
