Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: mad aetherist on 08/12/2018 21:17:30
-
[HERE IS SOME WORDAGE FROM ANOTHER THREAD RE IVOR CATT & HIS ELECTRIC CURRENT IDEAS THAT I THORT DESERVED ITS OWN THREAD.]
I dont know much about fields & electricity, but i am thinking that u cannot get very far here if u dont read what Ivor Catt has to say (articles)(& youtube)(& google the Catt question).
Is there a link to the articles?
Here are a few, & youtube links at end.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x267.pdf
http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF
http://www.ivorcatt.com/1_1.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/07091.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/catanoi.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/08101.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2698.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/
http://www.ivorcatt.com/em.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/28scan.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/981.htm
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/wbbanbk1.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm
-
Catt's question is re a switch being turned on to let current flow from a battery at the west end of a circuit to a load at the east end along 2 parallel wires, an electric field etc develops tween the top wire & bottom wire, & the field advances west to east at the speed of light in air -- the question being where does the new charge on the bottom wire come from?
I dont understand Catt's question, but apparently it is difficult to answer. Scientists fall into two groups, Westerners say that the charge comes from the west (ie the battery), & Southerners that say that the charge on the surface of the wire comes from inside the wire.
Westerners say that slowly drifting electrons (moving at say 1 mm/s) can create a current that travels at c if there are enough free electrons available which in copper there is. However even i (a non-scientist) can see that this is wrong. To transmit such a force at c electrons would have to themselves move at c across at least a small distance. But electrons cant move at c, they are particles & have mass. If electrons bunched shoulder to shoulder with zero space then praps they could transmit a psuedo-motion traveling at c, or praps if there was a very small space of say one millionth of an electron's dia, but i daresay that free electrons in copper enjoy a clear space of more like one million electron diameters (we dont know what an electron looks like, & we dont know the dia).
Southerners say that electrons migrate from inside the wire to the surface. But i doubt that that can do the trick, because (1) i think that there are no spare electrons inside a good conductor, any charge sits on the outside skin of the conductor, & (2) i think that the charge per m in the (say 1mm dia) wire would remain neutral overall, & hencely give a nett electric field of nearnuff zero.
But praps the electric field fights the Gaussian law & does indeed manage to result in a surface charge, ie on the bit of surface facing the other wire. I think that this sort of secondary charge rearrangement is compatible with Catt's fundamental theory.
But i suspect that a west to east charge (electron) motion is not compatible with Catts fundamental theory, even if that west to east current is merely a secondary effect (the Heaviside signal being the primary effect). I think that Catt reckons that there is no west to east current, ie there are 0.000 amperes. Circuits & transmission lines have energy fields not energy currents.
-
[HERE IS SOME WORDAGE FROM ANOTHER THREAD.]
I find it very difficult to think that you are against science if you write in this forum.
We get quite a lot of anti science posters. Some don’t understand it; some talk about ‘science’, usually hurt because no one will agree with their pet theory; some have religious reasons and disagree with heliocentrism, tectonics, evolution, etc.
if someone attempts to disagree with Einstein, his thread is moved to new theories.
Not strictly true, we have had quite a few discussions around Einstein's views, understanding has moved on since he originally put forward his ideas so there are areas of debate. Nor are we anti aether, just agnostic, because we don’t see clear evidence that it exists - you will find discussion here on LET (Lorentz Ether Theory) which gives the same experimental results as relativity, but a different explanation. However, most aetherists are putting forward posts which contradict the results of verified experiments and observations, so they are offering new theories. We (as a forum) are not saying they are wrong, just that we organise the forum with a separate category for new or alternative ideas. As long as folks are polite and don’t troll we are happy to debate, but time is limited and we give priority to the mainstream sections. All who answer questions here do so in their spare time, unpaid, but they have day jobs, projects etc so time is limited. So we can’t debate everything and we can't leave mainstream questions/statements unanswered because people wrongly assume no response = agreement. We would have a real problem of credibility if a schoolchild goes and tells teacher that tides are not due to the moon, but to giant whirlpools, they saw it on a TNS site, so it must be true.
PS - you don’t see many trolls because we weed them out asap, but we do get quite a few.
Appreciate if you let me know your findings on the odd post.
This one caught my eye as I skimmed through this thread:
Re censorship here is a copy of some wordage that i just posted on another thread re The Catt Question some of which details the suppression of Ivor Catt & his ideas.
http://www.ptep-online.com/2016/PP-44-13.PDF
I was puzzled by the way this question is presented. If you look at the first document in the list, which I’ve separated out from the rest, the question presented is as shown in the screenshot of the video further down and asks where the current in the bottom wire comes from.
He shows a battery on the left and describes the voltage on the bottom line as 0v. This would probably make any layman go ‘Ooo, good point, no voltage, no current’, but as anyone who has worked with electricity knows, voltage is relative so we could easily describe the top line as 0v and the bottom line as showing a voltage and ask where does the current in the top line come from.
The answer is simple, they both come from the same place. If you connect a battery across a circuit you will provide a push of electrons at one end of the battery and a pull at the other end.
There is another odd comment about source of charge ‘not from somewhere to the left because such charge would have to travel at the speed of light’. This is based on the old idea that charge in a wire was carried by physical movement of electrons from one end of the wire to the other. Invoking Heavyside doesn’t help because he didn’t know what we now know about the atomic structure of conductive metals and electron drift. A better way to envisage what happens is to imagine a tube full of marbles, push a marble in at one end and another one immediately falls out the other. No marbles travelled from end to end but a ‘unit of marble’ did - at very high speed.
The whole ‘problem’ here is based on a misunderstanding. It would appear that this is being passed around the internet as an example of a conspiracy of science mafia suppressing alternative views. Catt is not being suppressed, it’s just that he makes wrong assumptions and draws incorrect conclusions from them, so he is ignored. Example of bad science.
-
Catt's question is re a switch being turned on to let current flow from a battery at the west end of a circuit to a load at the east end along 2 parallel wires, an electric field etc develops tween the top wire & bottom wire, & the field advances west to east at the speed of light in air -- the question being where does the new charge on the bottom wire come from?
The key to all of this is that the field advances at the speed of light in air (is this true)(i assume it is).
How do electrons know that the wires have air tween.
I agree with Catt that the energy of an electric current is contained in the field(s). The field is the current, ie the current is not the current. The electrons dont make the field tween the wires, it is the field that moves the electrons (i will have a think re this)(i think Catt infers that electrons dont move here)(ie there is no flow of electrons)(ie the ampere is false)(i will read up on Catt).
And the field of course travels in the air at the speed of light in air. But i see a problem here. There are two speeds of light. Firstly the speed of the advance of the electric field along the wires, ie from west to east. Secondly the speed of the electric field itself, ie from north to south. But praps i am wrong, praps there is no speed from north to south.
Catt says that a Heavyside signal goes from west to east, in the form of an unchanging slab of E*H energy current which is partly reflected back at changes in impedance or is absorbed by the terminating resistor. Catt draws the slab with leading edge at 90 deg to the wires. I suspect that if the electric field advances west to east at c, & at the same time crosses tween the wires at c, then the leading edge must be at 45 deg.
Or praps 2 leading edges of 2 half-slabs each at 45 deg trailing back from the top wire & from the bottom wire, meeting at a midpoint.
Or (as i mention in another thread)(photinos do they travel at more than c?), the speed of an electric field (north to south here)(not the speed of advance west to east) is praps as great as 5c. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75611.0
I will have a think re this. I dont fully understand Catt's theory.
-
Wow , thats a short list .
-
Wow, thats a short list .
I will work my way throo it, to try to better understand Catt, & i will erase any double entries (some small articles & videos are i think already in the bigger ones).
Today i am reading three papers by Forrest Bishop re Catt etc.
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V14NO4PDF/V14N4BIS.pdf
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_paperlink_7395.pdf
And one paper by Chew........ A RESOLUTION OF THE CATT ANOMALY CHAN RASJID KAH CHEW 6 May 2018
http://vixra.org/pdf/1810.0352v1.pdf
Forrest Bishop gave a presentation for Thunderbolts. It was advertised as.........
Introduction to and Implications of Ivor Catt's TEM Wave Electrodynamics
We, beginning with Ivor Catt and Oliver Heaviside, have removed “Electric Current” from the theory of electricity and replaced it with “Energy Current”, also called the TEM wave. In this picture, all apparently static fields are illusory effects of one or more such Energy Currents, always and only moving at the speed of light. By erasing electric current, along with its attendant contradictions and clutter, any theory that builds on that concept is also erased, replaced with a partly new, partly old, theory of TEM Wave Electrodynamics. This advanced theory is only concerned with transient behavior, as all behavior is transient.
-
April 2013 Electronics World.
The End of the Road.
The Tony Wakefield Experiment.
By Ivor Catt.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3216.pdf
Tony Wakefield on the "Wakefield Experiment".
A challenge to Academia.
The "Wakefield Wakefield Experiments " one & two were both performed in non-laboratory conditions with the best equipment & materials available. The challenge is to ask that these experiments be repeated in a controlled laboratory environment by recognised professionals and the findings reported.
Ivor Catt claims that there is no such thing as a static charge in a capacitor and that the energy is moving at the speed of light (c) in a dielectric. Light travels 30 centimetres or 11.811 inches in 1 nanosecond in a vacuum .
Capacitors come is different shapes and sizes, making it difficult to show what is happening inside. By stretching out the capacitor to 2 very thin & long wires makes it very easy to measure the results. A coaxial cable provides the ideal method to produce a long capacitor and also minimise external interference.
A capacitor is a transmission line and a transmission line is a capacitor. The experiment required a termination into a infinitely long termination (matching coax of same impedance). This is not practical, but can be simulated by a terminating resistor of same impedance as the cable. This can be simplified with a metal film small resistor of value equal to the Coaxial impedance.
It was noted that minor imperfections in the components and test equipment used would result in slight overshoot / undershoot / ringing in the waveforms observed in the documented experiment. The length of the capacitor / coax used was 18 meters so that we could measure the times within a couple of nanoseconds accuracy and minimal losses. At the completion of the experiments I am in agreement with Ivor Catt that the results matched his prediction of some 40 years ago.
History.
I first met Ivor Catt in the late 1960's when we both worked for a new UK computer company. We both worked in the design and development of a new fast mini computer. I lost contact with Ivor for 50 years, but made contact a few years ago and studied some of his work via his website. I looked at the experiment that he was unable to do as the test equipment he had obtained would not function due to age. I was able to come up with a way to replace the equipment he had. After discussions I offered to perform the "Wakefield Experiment One". [We still have not met for 50 years, and now he is in Australia. I watched “Wakefield 1” on Skype. – Ivor Catt]
At a presentation to Newcastle University given by Ivor Catt, four Phd students came up with a different experiment that would verify the results of experiment one. This is now known as “ Wakefield Experiment Two “.
Linkedin Tony Wakefield: https://au.linkedin.com/in/tony-wakefield-4020723 18 July 2016
Tony failed to say (above) that before he did the experiment I told him it would not be possible to publish the results in a peer reviewed journal. Peers would not permit the suggestion that a charged capacitor did not have a stationary electric field. Professor Yakovlev refused to give me the names of the four students responsible for Wakefield 2
I wanted them to do the experiment and try to publish the results. Newcastle University could not afford to be involved in an experiment which showed that a charged capacitor did not have a stationary electric field. Neither will Newcastle do the next “Wakefield” experiments called EEB.
– Ivor Catt
-
Electrical signals in wires don't travel at c.
They typically travel at about 2/3c; the exact speed depends on the geometry, construction and materials of the wire and its insulation.
-
Electrical signals in wires don't travel at c.
They typically travel at about 2/3c; the exact speed depends on the geometry, construction and materials of the wire and its insulation.
I dont know much about electricity & fields & circuits. I was wondering what effect plastic insulation has. And i had seen mention that a typical speed is 200,000 kmps (probly re wires with plastic insulation). And i suppose that most of Catt's stuff refers to DC, & i was wondering what happens with AC.
Anyhow i am still reading Bishop's & Catt's stuff. It looks like Zo is the key to almost everything in circuits (Zo is 377 ohm)(the impedance of vacuum).
Anyhow whether 200,000 kmps or 300,000 kmps free electrons drifting at say 1 mm/s cannot transmit these sorts of electric current speeds -- i estimate that electrons might give a current speed of say 0.5*0.5c/100,000 which is say 3/4 kmps -- where one 0.5 is an allowance for the inertia of an electron & the 0.5c is the say orbital speed of electrons & the 1/100,000 is the ratio of electron dia to ave clear gap tween free electrons.
I dont know whether drift speed (1 mm/s) is important -- but there are 750,000 mm in 3/4 km.
Hencely the Westerner's claim that electrons can transmit pulses of c (or even 0.66c) is an impossibility.
Plus thems little electrons might be smart but not smart enuff to know that the plastic must slow them or at least slow their little bump bump bump shenanigans.
Catt says that the current is always 0.000 amps & that any talk of speed is hencely redundant. Catt says that electrical energy is transmitted by the E*H field outside the wires, not some sort of VIR current inside the copper.
Bishop seems to explain all of this much better than Catt.
And electricity & impedance etc is starting to make more sense to me & i might take more interest in circuits etc from now on. Still reading.
Which reminds me. Cahill had a bit of trouble with his coaxial cable or optical cable MMXs or Zener diode stuff. It might have concerned IAAAD. And Catt's stuff means that a half of the voltage in a circuit is available for IAAAD when the switch is closed. So, Catt has identified one example of IAAAD, probly the only valid instance of IAAAD in science (albeit a semi-IAAAD). And of course real IAAAD is impossible, so what we have here might be better called a sort of faux or psuedo or quasi semi-IAAAD.
Anyhow Catt should get a Nobel (praps shared with Bishop & Wakefield).
-
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Catt Anomaly. First described in Wireless World, aug81. When a voltage step travels down a two wire transmission line, more and more negative charge must appear on the lower line to terminate the electric flux. This has to travel from the left at the speed of light, but in that case the electrons have infinite mass. p31. [My 1996 book The Catt Anomaly pub. Westfields, is on my website www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ ]
Characteristic impedance. If the front end of a long coaxial cable behaves like a 50W resistor, then we say that the line has a characteristic impedance of 50W. It would be more accurate if we called it "Characteristic resistance", but we don't. p24.
Energy current. p14, p28 The counterpoint to electric current. A phrase used only twice by Heaviside late last century as the foundation of his Theory H, in which the cause is energy current, or the Poynting Vector, guided along between the conductors at the speed of light, and causing the electric current and charge in the conductors, which he called "obstructors". Energy current was never mentioned again until Catt discovered it. Previous Heaviside savants Josephs, Gossick, Mercer, all of whom I have met, overlooked it. The Poynting Vector is an early version of it, and it later became the TEM Wave.
TEM Wave. Transverse Electromagnetic Wave. Fig5, p2 This neglected concept is the central feature of Catt's theory of electromagnetism. Conventionally, the TEM wave has a B component in the x direction, an E component in the y direction, and travels forward in the z direction at the speed of light, 300,000 km/s (in vacuo).
Under Theory C, the TEM wave is the only physically possible expression of electric field and of magnetic field. The two fields are indissolubly linked in the ratio 377W (in vacuo). Further, such a field cannot be stationary. It can only travel at the speed of light. Stationary electric and magnetic fields do not exist. Fields travelling at other than the speed of light do not exist.
Theory C. First disclosed In Wireless World, dec80. The third in the sequence (p29) of fundamental theories of electromagnetism. C stands for Catt. Catt realised that when Theory H reversed the causality between electric current and field, it led to the disappearance of the need for current and charge. This excision resolves the Catt Anomaly (p31). p12
Theory H. The second in the series of theories. H stands for Heaviside. "We reverse this; the current in the wire is set up by the energy transmitted through the medium around it ..."
Theory N. The conventional theory of electromagnetism which has ruled for a century since the suppression of Oliver Heaviside and his supporters. A battery yearns to send electric current down wires. If it succeeds, this results in electric field, or flux, between the wires, and magnetic field, or flux, surrounding the current in the wires.
Transverse Electromagnetic Wave. See TEM Wave.
-
A DIFFICULTY IN ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY
by Arnold Lynch and Ivor Catt
We seem to have two different systems of electrical theory almost but not quite independent of each other. The difficulty has existed for more than a hundred years but appeared unimportant until the last twenty years or so. ….
….
P2/2
Now we describe a problem which combines the two types of theory and shows the difficulty mentioned in the title of this paper. It arose about twenty years ago when fast-operating silicon chips were connected to one another. We idealise the problem slightly. Imagine a coaxial transmission line terminated by a matched load at the far end; and for simplicity let it be evacuated, and of very low resistance. Apply a step voltage to its input; a wave travels along it with the velocity of waves in free space. So after a time a current begins to flow in the terminating load; that is, electrons start to move through it. The problem is - where did they come from? Not from the input, because electrons have finite mass and so they cannot travel at the velocity of waves in free space. (Remember that we are considering a step voltage, not an alternating one.)
One of us sent the problem to various people who might have been expected to provide an answer, and the responses were mainly of two kinds (ref. 1):
(1) that the wave causes radial movements in the line as it passes over them, and that electrons displaced in this way at the far end make up the current; or
(2) that electrons move along the line, with velocity less than the wave, but push other electrons on in front of them, keeping pace with the wave.
This problem was mentioned in the Institution's Wheatstone Lecture last December. The lecturer said that electrons in a metal travel only slowly but that they can transmit a fast electromagnetic wave by "nudging" their neighbors ("nudging" was his word for it).
Our comments on this are: each atom in a metal contributes a few free electrons, so there are rather more electrons than atoms and therefore they are spaced from each other by a little less than the spacing of the atoms - say about a tenth of a nanometre. The size of an electron is not known, but it is presumably much smaller than an atomic nucleus, which is about a millionth of a nanometre. That is, the electrons are spaced apart by more than 100,000 times their diameter. So they cannot deliver a nudge without moving, and they cannot move instantaneously because of their mass..
.
REFERENCES
1. I. Catt, "The Catt Anomaly" (Westfields Press, St. Albans), 1996
2. A. C. Lynch, "Half the electron", Engineering Science and Education Journal, 6, pp 215-220 (1997)
Dr. Arnold Lynch is an Honorary Research Fellow in the Dept. of Electronic Engineering, University College, London; correspondence can be addressed to him at 8 Heath Drive, Potters Bar, Herts, EN6 1EH
-
Energy Current.
Oliver Heaviside, who had the advantage of being born later, had a better grasp of electromagnetics than did Faraday or Maxwell, and his view of how a digital signal travels is well worth study[1].
Whereas the conventional approach to the subject today is to concentrate on the electric current in wires, with some additional consideration of voltages between wires, Heaviside concentrates primarily on what he calls 'energy current', this being the electromagnetic field which travels in the dielectric between the wires. In the quotation below, Heaviside's phrase, "We reverse this;" point to the great watershed in the history of electromagnetic theory
between the 'etherials', who with Heaviside believe that the signal is an 'energy current' which travels in the dielectric between the wires, and
the 'practical electricians', who like John T. Sprague believe that the signal is an electric current which travels down copper wires, and that if there is a 'field' in the space between the wires, this is only the result of what is happening in the conductors.
Heaviside wrote (Ref.22);
"Now in Maxwell's theory there is the potential energy of the displacement produced in the dielectric parts by the electric force, and there is the kinetic or magnetic energy of the magnetic induction due to the magnetic force in all parts of the field, including the conducting parts. They are supposed to be set up by the current in the wire. We reverse this; the current in the wire is set up by the energy transmitted through the medium around it...."
The importance of Heaviside's phrase, "We reverse this;" cannot be overstated for digital designers. It points to the watershed between the 'practical electricians', who have held sway for the last half century, promulgating their theory - which we shall call "Theory N", the Normal Theory: that the cause is electric currents in wires and electromagnetic fields are merely an effect - and the 'ethereals', who believe what we shall call "Theory H": that the travelling field is the cause, and electric currents are merely an effect of these fields.
The situation is of course obscured by the many who claim that it is immaterial which causes which. However, experience shows that it is damaging to ignore causality when trying to assemble reliable digital systems.
-
Before continuing with Theory H, we shall quote one early Theory N man, a 'practical electrician' named John T. Sprague. In his book, ref.23, he ridicules Theory H;
"A new doctrine is becoming fashionable of late years, devised chefly in order to bring the now important phenomena of alternating currents under the mathematical system. It is purely imaginary ... based on Clerk-Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light, itself correctly described by a favourable reviewer as 'a daring stroke of scientific speculation,' alleged to be proved by the very little understood experiments of Hertz, and supported by a host of assumptions and assertions for which no kind of evidence is offered; but its advocates call it the 'orthodix' theory.
"This theory separates the two factors of electricity ..., and declares that the 'current', the material action, is carried by the 'so-called conductor' (which according to Dr Lodge contains nothing, not even an impulse, and according to Mr. O. Heaviside is to be regarded as an obstructor), but the energy leaves the 'source' (battery or dynamo) 'radiant in exactly the same sense as light is radiant', according to Professor Sylvanus P. Thompson, and is carried in space by the ether: that it 'swirls' round (cause for such swirling no one exaplains) and finds its way to the conductor in which it then produces the current which is apparently merely an agency for clearing the ether of energy which tends to 'choke' it, while the conductor serves no other purpose than that of a 'waste pipe' to get rid of this energy ...
"This much, however, is certain; that if the 'ether' or medium, or di-electrics carry the energy, the practical electrician must not imagine he can get nature to do his work for him; the ether, &c., play no part whatsoever in the calculations he has to make; whether copper wire is a conductor or a waste pipe, that is what he has to provide in quantity and quality to do the work; if gutta percha, &c., really carry the energy, he need not trouble about providing for that purpose; he must see to it that he provides it according to the belief that it prevents loss of current. In other words, let theoretical mathematicians devise what new theories they please, the practical electrician must work upon the old theory that the condctor does his work and the insulation prevents its being wasted. Ohm's law (based on the old theory) is still his safe guide.
"For this reason I would urge all practical electricians, and all students who desire to gain a clear conception of the actual operation of electricity, to dismiss from their minds the new unproved hypotheses about the ether and the abstract theory of conduction, and to completely master the old, the practical, and common sense theory which links matter and energy together..."
Sprague accurately described Theory N, which has been used in practice by virtually every digital designer, with disastrous results. They must now turn to Theory H to get them out of their difficulties.
-
In his book (ref.24), J. A. Fleming argued for Theory H;
"It is important that the student should bear in mind that, although we are accustomed to speak of the current as flowing in the wire in one direction or the other, this is a mere form of words. What we call the current in the wire is, to a very large extent, a process going on in the space or material outside the wire. Just as we familiarly speak of the sun rising and setting, when the effect is really due to the rotation of the earth, so the ordinary language we use in speaking about electric currents flowing in conductors retains the form impressed upon it by older and erroneous assumptions as to their nature."
The reader will have surmised by now that "energy current", the primary signal which travels down the dielectric from one logic gate to the next, has an amplitude equal to the Poynting vestor, E x H.
We shall end this qualitative discussion with some of the more important quotations from Heaviside, the man who a century ago brilliantly used the concept of energy current to solve telegraph problems which closely parallel present-day problems in high speed digital logic.
Heaviside wrote (ref.22);
"It becomes important to find the paths along which the energy is being transmitted. First define the energy-current at a point to be the amount of energy transferred in unit time across unit area perpendicular to the direction of transmission ... This is true universally, irrespective of the nature of the medium as to conductivity, capacity and permeability ... and is true in transient as well as in steady states. A line of energy-current is perpendicular to the electric and the magnetic force, and is a line of pressure, We here give a few general notions.
"Return to our wire from London to Edinburgh with a steady current from the battery in London The energy is poured out of the battery sideways into the dielectric at a steady rate ... Most of the energy is transmitted parallel to the wire nearly ... But some of the outer tubes go out into space to an immense distance ... If there is an instrument in the circuit at Edinburgh, it is worked by energy that has travelled wholly through the dielectric, then finding its way into the instrument, ... where it enters ... and is there dissipated ...
"In a circular circuit, with the battery at one end of a diameter, its other end is the neutral point; the lines of energy-current are distributed symmetrically with respect to the diameter.
"On closing the battery circuit (i.e. switching the logic output) there is an immediate rush of energy into the dielectric ..." EDIT BY MAD AETHERIST ON 10APRIL2019 -- NO, SEE #25 -- THERE IS NO STATIC ELECTRICITY, ALL ELECTRICITY IS AN ENERGY CURRENT IN THE DIELECTRIC MOVING AT C/N AT ALL TIMES IN ALL PLACES -- THE CLOSING MERELY ALLOWS THAT SIGNAL TO CONTINUE THROO RATHER THAN BEING REFLECTED.
-
The Theories
A number of different dualisms obtain within or in the vicinity of electromagnetic theory as it is developing. the student needs to be warned against thinking that only one dualism is involved, and that he is merely seeing different expressions of the same dualism. The mutually distinct dualisms include:
wave-particle dualism
Theory N - Theory H (ref.18a)
The Rolling Wave - The Heaviside Signal (ref.18b p51)
It will be seen later that one of these is in fact a three-way split between Theory N, Theory H and Theory C.
Historical development.
The transition from classical, wireless-based electromagnetic theory, loosely equivalent to Theory N, to one of the preferred theoretical positions for the digital electronic designer, Theory H or Theory C, is via a complex development shown in Figure 63.
-
Is this a question about watching "lightning", like in the sky, seeing how it arcs out?
It really depends on the impedance in the medium, right?
-
Electrical signals in wires don't travel at c.
They typically travel at about 2/3c; the exact speed depends on the geometry, construction and materials of the wire and its insulation.
What's the physics of that, @evan_au ?
-
Is this a question about watching "lightning", like in the sky, seeing how it arcs out?
It really depends on the impedance in the medium, right?
I think that Catt & Co are talking re circuits & transmission lines & capacitors, with DC batteries (dunno re AC).
They say that electric power is due to external energy fields travelling at the speed of light in the dielectric surrounding & tween the conductors, & that electricity etc aint due to an internal current in the copper.
And the current is always 0.000000000000 amperes, ie there is no speed of any electron current & there is no speed of any electron drift (at least not any nett speed of drift)(not sure).
And the properties of the external energy field re a pair of conductors depends strongly on the impedance of space in vacuum (ie Zo which equals 120π ohm which is 377 ohm). And amperage does not exist.
But re natural lightning & laboratory lightning i daresay that this is a different thing to Catt's stuff, & i think that lightning involves ions & has amperage etc, & the associated electric fields etc are secondary whereas in circuits the electric fields etc are primary (fundamental).
-
April 2013 Electronics World --- The End of the Road --- The Tony Wakefield Experiment --- By Ivor Catt.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3216.pdf
A Change in Theory.
In my article entitled "Displacement Current" in Wireless World in December 1978 i pointed out that when a battery charges a capacitor, the energy is introduced into the capacitor at the speed of light. Once inside the capacitor, there is no mechanism for the energy to slow down.
The change in theory for a charged capacitor from stationary electric field to two electromagnetic fields travelling at the speed of light is an introduction to my general theory, that there is no such thing as a stationary field, electric or magnetic. Not only in the case of a charged capacitor, but always, any apparently stationary electric or magnetic field is in fact the superposition of two E*H electromagnetic fields travelling in opposite directions. Occam's Razor supports this assertion. In the case of the charged capacitor, the two magnetic fields are equal and opposite. They cancel, so an instrument cannot detect them. This gives the impression that a charged capacitor only has electric field, although the energy delivered to it when charging is a TEM wave of E*H energy current. The delivered energy is conventionally daid to have half its energy in the electric field and half in its magnetic field, travelling at the speed of light.
In Electronics World, January 2011, page 20, i again proved from first principles that such a EM wave can only travel at the speed of light for the dielectric, ±1/√(µɛ). It cannot travel slower. In our case the only possible velocity remains c, because it should be well known that when two pulses travel through each other in a coaxial cable they do not slow down. Rather, I²R losses disappear.
I wonder how is it that heat losses disappear in fully charged capacitors (ie in co-axial cables & in open circuits acting as capacitors). Praps heat losses in copper are all due to magnetic field, not electric field. If the magnetic field going left in a copper wire cancels the magnetic field going right then the nett apparent field must be zero. Magnetic fields might move or vibrate the electrons & protons in copper. I reckon that it is the protons that cause energy loss -- ie protons are vibrated by changing magnetic fields, giving heat gain & then heat loss in the copper.
Somehow electric fields dont cause energy loss, or at least apparently static electric fields dont cause energy loss. I dont understand this stuff. Still thinking.
When capacitors are charging or discharging (eg when circuits are operating) the Heaviside slab(s) of E*H might well be constant (as claimed by Catt), but i reckon that the H component might be changing in time or location or both (whatever that might mean), in which case protons in the copper are vibrated (giving losses)(& giving resistance to the Heaviside wave).
-
............There is another odd comment about source of charge ‘not from somewhere to the left because such charge would have to travel at the speed of light’. This is based on the old idea that charge in a wire was carried by physical movement of electrons from one end of the wire to the other. Invoking Heaviside doesn’t help because he didn’t know what we now know about the atomic structure of conductive metals and electron drift. A better way to envisage what happens is to imagine a tube full of marbles, push a marble in at one end and another one immediately falls out the other. No marbles travelled from end to end but a ‘unit of marble’ did - at very high speed.....................
The falling out would not be immediate, that would need IAAAD -- just a slip of the tongue -- saved later by saying at very high speed. So what would that very high speed be?
For marbles the apparent speed would be a little slower than the speed of sound in glass -- if the marbles were cubes instead of spheres then it might be equal to the speed of sound in glass.
For electrons this little thort-X gets complicated. Imagine a tube full of electrons, push an electron in at one end & another electron immediately falls out the other -- no electrons travelled from end to end but a ‘unit of electron’ did - at very high speed.
If it were possible to have electrons touching then the speed of the shock-front-pulse might be c if the electrons have no mass (ie no inertia), because if no mass then no strain (the electrons retain their shape)(what is their shape?)(a sphere?)(a doughnut?)(a spinning doughnut, ie a pseudo sphere?). However if at the end of the tube (or anywhere along the tube) the electrons have to do something (ie make a field)(ie supply an external force), then that force must require some sort of strain in the shapes of the electrons forming the train, in which case the speed of the pulse must be less than c (eg c/2)(naively). In addition if the electrons have mass (& they do) then that must result in its own strain (due to internal inertial force), in which case the two sets of strains would be additive (eg giving c/2/2)(naively).
And if electrons in that tube are not touching (ie if clear gaps) then what happens to the above c/2/2? The gaps will need their own kind of strain, to create the needed increase in the repulsive Coulomb forces tween electrons -- the size of the strain depending of the size of the gap -- & naively the speed of the pulse might then reduce to say c/2/2/100 which is 750 kmps (here the electrons are constrained in a tube)
My earlier guesstimate for not in a tube was 0.75 kmps.
The bottom line is that the speed of an electron pulse be it free electrons or bound or constrained in a tube cant be at c or anywhere near c.
-
Electrical signals in wires don't travel at c.
They typically travel at about 2/3c; the exact speed depends on the geometry, construction and materials of the wire and its insulation.
What's the physics of that, @evan_au ?
I think @evan_au is busy at moment.
Any pair of wires will have resistance, but also inductance and capacitance so will act like an LRC network limiting the build up of voltage & current and limiting the propagation velocity. The properties of the wire and insulation will affect these properties eg the type of insulation will affect the capacitance.
This topic would be quite interesting, but it is a jumble of partial facts and confused thinking that makes it too time consuming to respond on every item. Pity, best left to it's own devices.
-
This topic is mainly the papers & videos by Catt & Bishop & the experiment by Wakefield (see earlier links).
My postings-wordage are just snippets of info gleaned from Catt & Co as i understand them (which i dont)(but i am learning). Readers will be able to form an opinion re any partial facts & confused thinking.
The main confusion in this thread is re Westerners' inability to see that electrons cant transmit any sort of current-pulse at the speed of light. See #2 where i quote some wordage from Colin2B (that Colin made on 26 Oct 2018 on another thread where i first mentioned Catt's theory) -- Colin says that electrons can transmit a pulse at c, & Colin mentions marbles in a tube -- & see my anti-Westerner wordage in #8 & #19.
And this topic (re the fact that electric currents do not exist in circuits)(& electrical energy travels outside the copper, not inside) is i reckon one of the top say ten interesting physics topics that u might ever see re the nature of gravity light radiation & matter. This topic relates to electricity being radiation. My pet area is re radiation being photaenos (which emanate from photons).
Re videos, the following link has two videos by Catt, the main one is 111 minutes long & the question time one is 52 minutes long. The videos provide a fair amount of info missing i think from the writings. Unfortunately the videos are of poor quality, & in addition Catt must be the worst speaker-presenter u will ever hear-see. But bear in mind that this is the first time that he has presented much of that stuff. And has only a small amount of experience as a teacher etc (teaching remedial English).
Unlike the continual barrage of propaganda that we face daily from ignorant sophists paid to spout the science mafia's Einsteinian etc krapp.
Anyhow, it is worth the trouble (lots of it) of watching the videos, i saw some some gems in there.
http://async.org.uk/IvorCatt+DavidWalton.html
-
Re the confusion of Westerners (including Colin2B) re their insane belief that electron's have a magical ability to transmit a pulse at c, here below is some sane wordage by Lynch & Catt from #10.
A DIFFICULTY IN ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY by Arnold Lynch and Ivor Catt
...........One of us sent the problem to various people who might have been expected to provide an answer, and the responses were mainly of two kinds (ref. 1):
(1) that the wave causes radial movements in the line as it passes over them, and that electrons displaced in this way at the far end make up the current; or
(2) that electrons move along the line, with velocity less than the wave, but push other electrons on in front of them, keeping pace with the wave.
This problem was mentioned in the Institution's Wheatstone Lecture last December. The lecturer said that electrons in a metal travel only slowly but that they can transmit a fast electromagnetic wave by "nudging" their neighbors ("nudging" was his word for it). Our comments on this are: each atom in a metal contributes a few free electrons, so there are rather more electrons than atoms and therefore they are spaced from each other by a little less than the spacing of the atoms - say about a tenth of a nanometre. The size of an electron is not known, but it is presumably much smaller than an atomic nucleus, which is about a millionth of a nanometre. That is, the electrons are spaced apart by more than 100,000 times their diameter. So they cannot deliver a nudge without moving, and they cannot move instantaneously because of their mass.
-
I will return to Catt at a later date, i havent finished with him just yet.
But today i want to add that Catt uses-recommends a certain procedure for his brand of tests -- he uses two 1 mega ohm resistors at the battery so that the capacitor is trickle charged. I think that this ensures that the Heaviside wave bouncing back & forth in each half of the capacitor is a nice uniform wave (ie just before u close the switch)(ie just before u prove that electric current is a krapp notion).
-
Re the confusion of Westerners (including Colin2B) re their insane belief that electron's have a magical ability to transmit a pulse at c,
You are misrepresenting my views. I don’t believe that electrons transmit a pulse at c in a cable, and I don’t know of other physicists who believe it either.
You are probably misunderstanding my analogy of marbles in a tube which was to illustrate that individual electrons don’t need to travel from one end of a wire to the other. The speed at which the marbles exit is the same as the speed you push them in, which if they are perfectly rigid is as slow as you like and any speed up to that of c. By the way, shape makes no difference.
... each atom in a metal contributes a few free electrons, so there are rather more electrons than atoms and therefore they are spaced from each other by a little less than the spacing of the atoms - say about a tenth of a nanometre. The size of an electron is not known, but it is presumably much smaller than an atomic nucleus, which is about a millionth of a nanometre. That is, the electrons are spaced apart by more than 100,000 times their diameter. So they cannot deliver a nudge without moving, and they cannot move instantaneously because of their mass.
This argument is silly. You could use the same argument to suggest that atomic spacing means you can’t transmit sound through a solid and that the Sun can’t have an effect on the orbit of Saturn. Also they don’t have to move instantaneously in order to generate an em field.
In a crt there is a beam of electrons. They are spaced further apart than in copper, but left to it’s own devices the beam will diverge due to the electrons pushing each other apart.
This whole thread is based on a silly set of misunderstandings and false assumptions.
-
Re the confusion of Westerners (including Colin2B) re their insane belief that electron's have a magical ability to transmit a pulse at c,
You are misrepresenting my views. I don’t believe that electrons transmit a pulse at c in a cable, and I don’t know of other physicists who believe it either.
But if an electronic pulse doesnt travel at c then that leaves only the Catt idea of the pulse being due to the Heaviside wave (ie an em wave).You are probably misunderstanding my analogy of marbles in a tube which was to illustrate that individual electrons don’t need to travel from one end of a wire to the other. The speed at which the marbles exit is the same as the speed you push them in, which if they are perfectly rigid is as slow as you like and any speed up to that of c.
Yes i agree that once equilibrium has been established the exit rate is equal to the entry rate -- but here the crux of the issue is that equilibrium will take time. Once equilibrium has been established a marble might be exiting at exactly the same instant that a marble is entering but that doesnt mean that there is a connection, the marble exiting might be doing so under the influence of a marble that entered 2 or 3 marbles earlier. By the way, shape makes no difference.
If the marbles are pressed forcefully together then i think that the sound wave going along would be almost as fast & efficient as in solid glass. But if the marbles are gently touching then there might be a very very weak sound wave getting throo at fast speed, but the forceful wave would be trailing far behind.
If the tube is filled with electrons shoulder to shoulder, or even with large gaps, the initial movement of the first electron will create a pulse that travels the full length of the tube at c, but this pulse will be very weak -- the full force of the pulse travelling electron to electron along the tube will travel much slower than c.... each atom in a metal contributes a few free electrons, so there are rather more electrons than atoms and therefore they are spaced from each other by a little less than the spacing of the atoms - say about a tenth of a nanometre. The size of an electron is not known, but it is presumably much smaller than an atomic nucleus, which is about a millionth of a nanometre. That is, the electrons are spaced apart by more than 100,000 times their diameter. So they cannot deliver a nudge without moving, and they cannot move instantaneously because of their mass.
This argument is silly. You could use the same argument to suggest that atomic spacing means you can’t transmit sound through a solid and that the Sun can’t have an effect on the orbit of Saturn. Also they don’t have to move instantaneously in order to generate an em field.
I dont agree with thems analogies. But i do admit that the notion of free electron spacing might be wrong -- i am thinking that there is no need to think of free electrons at all -- every electron is a free electron -- in which case the spacing is much less than 100,000 electron diameters -- & if u take that one step further & consider that every electron is in a way non-free but in an orbit of sorts then that must add "rigidity" to the whole train -- but in the end the pulse cant ever reach c anyhow. In trying to think of something that might help Westerners' argument, there is evidence that at short range an electric field can travel at up to 5c (but i dont think that even this is enuff here). In a crt there is a beam of electrons. They are spaced further apart than in copper, but left to it’s own devices the beam will diverge due to the electrons pushing each other apart.
I am thinking that if the beam is travelling at c/10 & if the divergence is say 1 in 20 then the speed of divergence is say c/200 & the divergence might result in a transverse em pulse but this pulse might travel at ony c/200.This whole thread is based on a silly set of misunderstandings and false assumptions.
I saw a paper that mentioned that Hertz gave up doing em field tests because he kept getting instantaneous action at a distance. http://www.pandualism.com/d/instantaneous.html
Heaviside wave theory gives a psuedo semi-IAAAD, because the Heaviside wave is travelling at c at all times, it is never static, there is no such thing as a static field (in an electric circuit).
20dec2018: When the switch is closed there is already a part of the HW at that point, & instead of reflecting at the open switch it finds that it can continue, immediately, instantaneously, hencely it is not action at a distance, it is action at zero distance, thats why the "psuedo". And of course there is a similar HW on the far side of the switch doing the same thing.
The "semi" is because each HW is due to its own half of the capacitor, hencely each HW is half strength, hencely the full strength of the capacitor is not initially evident, it takes time for the two halves to team up & give the final full result, the time i think depending on the length of the circuit & the speed of light in the surrounding medium.
-
Does Faraday Allow Superposition? - Ivor Catt -- 2011.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x164npa.pdf
............... A difficulty has remained unnoticed for more than seventy years, and unnoticed by me for forty years. This is that Oersted assumes a single electric current around a loop creating a single magnetic field within the loop.
It does not allow two electric currents in opposite directions each creating its own magnetic field, which is what we see here in the passive line. Further, even before Oersted, classical theory does not allow two electric currents in opposite directions down a single wire.
It is helpful to look at the case of surface conductors, Fig. 10, where the two modes resulting from the injection of a single voltage spike travel at different velocities, and separate out, see Figs. 10 and 11. The signal arriving first further down the line is the Odd Mode, because more of it travels in the faster air than the slower Even Mode, more of which travels in the slower epoxy glass. Fig. 9..........
-
Dear Mr. Ivor Catt,
As chairman of the IEEE Microwave Theory and Techniques Society committee on Microwave Field Theory, MTT-15, I have been asked to respond to your request to Dr. John Powers, Executive Director, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.
I reviewed the previous responses you received from Professor M. Pepper and Neil McEwan. I am in general agreement with their assessment of the "Catt Anomaly".
I will limit my comments to the region of the electromagnetic spectrum corresponding to "microwave" frequencies. Hence, the wavelength of electromagnetic waves are very much greater that the atomic and hence, electron spacing in a good conductor. Our, view is one of looking at the macroscopic effects, not microscopic.
Conductors are material whose atomic outer shell (valence) electronics are not held very tightly and can migrate from one atom to another. These are known free electrons and for metal conductors they are very large in number. Assuming, one valence electron per atom, then the number of free electrons equals the number of atoms in the material since the material maintains charge neutrality. Hence, we have a "sea" of electrons in the metal. With no applied external field, these free electrons move with different velocities in random directions producing zero net current through the conductor. If an electric field is applied, there is a net migration of electrons parallel to the electric field, hence current flows.
However, if we consider individual electrons, when an electron is added at one end of a structure (e.g. a transmission line), one leaves the other end of the structure and charge neutrality is maintained. If we tag the entering electron, we find that it is not the electron that leaves the structure. The electron that leaves, is one that was already near the output and was forced out by the addition of an electron at the input.
This is the same phenomenon that we see in fluid flow. When a liquid flows through a pipe, adding a droplet of fluid at the input of the pipe causes an immediate expulsion of a droplet of fluid from the output of the pipe, however, it is not the same droplet.
When viewed from the input and output the system exhibits a finite yet extremely fast response time, however, the time required for any given droplet to propagate through the system is much longer than the input/output system response time.
Back, to the electrical problem, when a free charge is first placed inside a conductor it is subjected to a static field, the charge density at that point then decays exponentially until the static electric field in the conductor goes to zero. The time constant of that exponential decay is known at the "relaxation time constant", tr. For conductors, such as copper that time constant is of the order 10^-19 sec. This time constant is much shorter that the period of a microwave signal, therefore, we can consider the electrons to always be is a state of equilibrium in the material.
Concerning, the question of charges terminating electric fields incident upon the conductors. With no applied electric field, free electrons on average are positioned in the conductor to exactly compensate for the positive charge of the nucleus of the atoms making up the material. When an electric field is applied, the electrons, on average move so that the total electric field inside of the material remains at zero. (Ei + Ea = 0). Where Ei is the field within the conductor due to slight net movement of the electrons relative to the fixed atom position. This results in a polarization of the atoms.
The distances that any individual electron has to move is extremely small because of the collective effects of many electrons involved and occurs within a period equal to a few relaxation time constants. Ea is the applied field. The net effect of all this is that, a equivalent surface charge appears which terminates the applied electric field. Since the displacement of any individual electron is small, it can follow a rapidly changing electric field as discussed in the Catt Anomaly description.
In conclusion, from the microwave point of view, which is macroscopic, the so called "Catt Anomaly" is well understood and does not play a role.
Sincerely James W. Mink Ph.D. Chairman MTT-15 (IEEE) Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering, North Carolina State University 16nov95
-
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/12/12/the-wakefield-experiments-background-and-motivation/
By the 1930s the last remaining vestiges of the aether had been removed from the engineering textbooks as well as the physics curriculum. During this period, the rapid advances of electronics, seemed to confirm the electron theory of current, although there were some areas of divergence. The theory of transmission lines and electromagnetic waves became the province of the electrical power transmission, communication, and radio engineers. These technologists were not interested in developing physical theory, but were concerned with implementing new technologies.
This explains why in the textbook Principles of Electric Power Transmission by L.F. Woodruff, we find that there is a photograph of an oscillogram of the building up of a charge on a transmission line. The picture shows the line charging up in steps exactly in accordance with Theory C of Ivor Catt.
However, the interpretation given this experimental result, is not consistent with Theory C , but with the old theory that the results are due to traveling waves of voltage and current. This approach sees the current and voltage waves as completely different phenomena and so the opportunity to develop Theory C was missed.
-
I saw a paper that mentioned that Hertz gave up doing em field tests because he kept getting instantaneous action at a distance. http://www.pandualism.com/d/instantaneous.html
Heaviside wave theory gives a psuedo semi-IAAAD, because the Heaviside wave is travelling at c at all times, it is never static, there is no such thing as a static field (in an electric circuit).
20dec2018: When the switch is closed there is already a part of the HW at that point, & instead of reflecting at the open switch it finds that it can continue, immediately, instantaneously, hencely it is not action at a distance, it is action at zero distance, thats why the "psuedo". And of course there is a similar HW on the far side of the switch doing the same thing. The "semi" is because each HW is due to its own half of the capacitor, hencely each HW is half strength, hencely the full strength of the capacitor is not initially evident, it takes time for the two halves to team up & give the final full result, the time i think depending on the length of the circuit & the speed of light in the surrounding medium.
This week i discovered an experiment re IAAAD that i now carry out ever day in my kitchen.
U need one toaster & four slices of cheap white sliced bread (99 cents per loaf)(dont use wholegrain)(& dont buy toasting slices, buy the thin sandwich slices).
Most eaters would (1) put 2 cold slices in the toaster, (2) pull down the lever, & (3) wait a few minutes until (4) the toast popped up, & then (5) extract the 2 toasted slices.
But what i now do is i go straight to (5), then (1), then (2). (3) & (4) can be ignored.
This way i get instantaneous toast every time. The speed of the current etc is i suppose in effect instantaneous, ie a kind of IAAAD, or pseudo-IAAAD i suppose.
I put sardines & onion on my toast, for lunch (i live alone). Now all i need to do is to work out a way of saving time re opening a can of sardines. There has to be a way of making it in effect instantaneous. Get the 69 cent cans. In tomato sauce is ok (or in vegie oil, or in brine)(same price). Slicing the onion (69 cents per kg for brown onion) takes time too. Thinking.
-
Erik Margan – The Heaviside's Experiment -- http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x726.pdf
Margan performs a small experiment & gets the same results as Catt got & as Wakefield got (see #6), showing that the electrical energy flows outside conductors & is not produced by a flow of electrons in conductors. And static charge & static magnetism etc are due to the superposition of two equal energy currents allways moving at c/n.
Margan calls modern water pipe analogies re electricity "plumber's electricity".
However Margan & Catt & Wakefield & Co all think that the em fields & energy currents are carried by photons.
No, em fields are due to & carried by the photaenos emitted by free photons & by confined photons (eg electrons).