|
Riposte
I make the commitment that anyone wishing
to counter any assertion made on this site will be guaranteed a hyperlink to a
website of their choosing at the point where the disputed assertion is
made. ivor@ivorcatt.com
Ivor
Catt. 18june02
Scandals in Electromagnetic Theory http://www.ivorcatt.com/28scan.htm
Key insights removed from
later editions of Standard Electromagnetic Theory book.
Dear Ivor,
["Standard
Handbook for Electrical Engineers" - 10th
Edition (1968) by Fink & Carrol - McGraw
Hill]
I have the 10th edition and can confirm that every edition after this one had
the reference excised. We know that this was done because the "enlightened
paragraph" [below] did not concur with the accepted
mathematical formulae. Easier to remove a few words than attempt to modify a
century of mathematical claptrap.
In my humble opinion, the average lecturer today has absolutely no concept of
the basics of this subject, they all merely trot out the same stuff year
after
year. The only reason that electronics is in its present incarnation is
that we
were able to shrink everything in size, masking the lack of a sound
theoretical
underpinning. However, we are reaching the limits now and I envision
real
problems occurring in the near future. Yet, I must remain open to the
instrumentalist's view that, "provided it works, why bother about the
underlying
theory". "I don't need to know how an engine works to drive a
car"!
Rationalisations, I completely disagree with, but [not] ones that motivate
people to
solve things by trial and error rather than coherent intellectual
thinking. The
idea that a super conductor has zero energy in it, resulting in zero losses,
rather than this concept of zero resistance, makes a scary thought for the
conventional thinker. I wrote a paper in 1980 showing how a super
conductor
had infinite permittivity at zero degrees and that was the reason for the
"conductor" becoming the perfect obstructor.
All the Best ,
Malcolm [Davidson] April02
(Embedded
image moved
ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk
to file: 04/30/2002 10:22
AM
pic11546.pcx)
************************************************************
From C.M., alias
energy_synctek@gmx.net
cc: Malcolm Davidson@Sony_Music
Subject: Re: Theory C - SOME QUESTIONS ?
I fully agree that these days our students are not taught and made aware of
these fundamental concepts (unless they study microwave and antenna theory) I
have been told that these references as noted above HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM
ALL
EDITIONS BEYOND THE 10th EDITION in the above standard reference book for
electrical engineers - I wonder why ??
I believe that all prior editions less than the 10th Edition - clearly show
the
above reference facts as detailed above. The first edition was printed about
1957.
I also think one of the reasons for this is that our modern
"teachers"
themselves do not really understand their own theory? – C.M.
********************************************************
My co-author Malcolm Davidson discovered that the key information had been
removed after a certain edition of a certain text book. Please would he via a
reply to this email say whether the book you refer to is the same book? Thank
you, Malcolm. (Malcolm is in New York.) Ivor
Catt 30apr02
The classic source for the idea we are discussing is Fleming, whom we quote.
I.C.
To help your difficulty in coming to grasp with the excision of electric
charge
and current. Look at two Maxwell equations. One shows that so-called electric
charge is a mathematical manipulation of electric field. A gradient in
electric
flux density is taken to represent charge. Electric current is a
gradient in
some other field density (I forget which. However, you can get the idea by
sticking to the fact that dE/dx is a measure of
so-called electric charge
density. If electric field density diminishes over distance, it is taken to
mean
that there is electric charge in that region terminating some of the electric
field. I have written all this up somewhere.). Thus, electric
charge and
electric current are non-existent, but can be
calculated by mathematically
manipulating the variation with distance of real fields, using Maxwell's
Equations. I. C.
22apr04.
The above is a crucial point, ignored by
everyone. Of course, this is because no learned journals in the world will
publish me, as has continued for 30 years. However, even within my suppressed
writings, I do not make this important point forcefully.
Look at
Maxwell’s Equations. You will see equations which link (electric charge and
current) with field. It follows that electric charge (and electric current)
is a mathematical manipulation of field. It follows from that that it is
possible to remove one or other; (charge/current) or field, from physical
reality. The item removed survives only as a mathematical manipulation of the
other.
Analogy.
Earth and rock (er) exist. Height and slope do not exist, being merely
mathematical manipulation of distribution of earth and rock. Flatness is
merely a mathematical manipulation of amount of earth/rock spread over area.
If d(er)/dx and d(er)/dy are zero, then we have
flatness. However, flatness (plateau) does not exist. It is merely the result
of mathematical manipulation of distribution of er over area. If only
d(er)/dx or only d(er)/dy is constant, then we have
a ridge. However, a ridge does not exist. It is merely the result of
mathematical manipulation of the distribution of earth and rock.
On the other
hand, flatness and ridge might be physical reality, and earth/rock merely the
non-existent mathematical manipulation of physically real flatness and/or
ridge.
In the
Calculus, the item f might exist. Or only the item df/dx could exist, the rest
being mathematical manipulations of physical reality. Or the only thing that
really exists could be the integral of f.
Ivor Catt 22apr04
******************************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: energy
To: Ivor Catt
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Theory C - SOME QUESTIONS ?
Hi Ivor,
To my knowledge, Standard EM Theory has always acknowledged and taught
that
the Energy Flow in a transmission line (such as your lamp connected to a
battery), The Poynting Vector S=EXH flows in the dielectric medium
outside of
the wire. The wires are simply the guides for EM energy flow. At least this
is
what I was taught in my engineering course in the early 1970's.
So in some ways, I do not fully agree that this knowledge has been
suppressed.
I have a few text books that clearly show this theory, For example as
reference my copy of the "Standard Handbook for Electrical
Engineers" - 10th
Edition (1968) by Fink & Carrol - McGraw Hill, clearly state these
principles
on pages 2-12 -to 2-13.
To quote some lines
”Metals are conductors for current, but
nonconductors for the flow of energy, while
dielectrics are good conductors for the flow of energy.
A significant point about this phenomenon is the fact that
electromagnetic energy flows predominantly through dielectrics (non conductors). Metals are conductors for current but nonconductors for the flow of energy, while dielectrics
are good conductors for the flow of energy.
Near the surface of a transmission line conductor, the Poynting vector
is slightly inclined towards the conductor's surface, thus giving rise to a
small component of energy flow into the conductor. This component of the electromgnetic wave causes the conductor current, which in
turn causes a loss but does NOT contribute usefully to the power
transmission.
The usually accepted view that the conductor current produces the
magnetic field surrounding it must be displaced by the more appropriate one
that the electromagnetic field surrounding the conductor produces, through a
small drain on its energy supply, the current in the conductor. Although the
value of the latter (the conductor current) may be used in computing the
transmitted energy, one should clearly recognise that physically this current
produces only a loss and in NO WAY has a direct part in the phenomenon of
power transmission.”
I think the last paragraph sums this concept beautifully! [Heaviside
wrote more or less exactly the same in the 1880s. Ivor Catt, 12mar04]
This was the way I was introduced to EM concepts and was marvelled at
the time
- still am. But as with many concepts in Electrical Engineering we simply put
the theory aside and use the standard formula's (e.g. P = V X I ) which do seem
give the correct computational results that we measure with our instruments.
Only in Antenna theory or Microwave Devices do we consider such
concepts
again, then we really need to use the Poynting flow concepts? - At low
frequency
we do not even consider these points, if we do, then we would have to
consider
all our electrical circuits in fine geometrical detail - where we must
consider
every bend or twist in our circuit wires. ( I think
this is why most text books
AVOID the matter all together)
I fully agree that these days our students are not taught and made
aware of
these fundamental concepts (unless they study microwave and antenna theory).
I
have been told that these references as noted above HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM
ALL EDITIONS BEYOND THE 10th EDITION in the above standard reference book for
electrical engineers - I wonder why ??
I believe that all prior editions less than the 10th Edition - clearly
show
the above reference facts as detailed above. The first edition was printed
about
1957.
I also think one of the reasons for this is that our modern
"teachers"
themselves do not really understand their own theory? [Agreed. Ivor Catt,
12mar04]
SOME COMMENTS I HAVE CONCERNING YOUR THEORY C
1. In your Theory C - do you state there is NO CURRENT
FLOW whatsoever?
Theory C states that electric current does not exist. I.C.
2. . In your Theory C - if the wires are
guides only is there no reaction to
surface charge density in the conductor? There is no surface charge density
in
the conductor. I.C.
3. In your Theory C - What exactly is your meaning of electric
current?
Electric current is the flow of electric charge. When a battery is connected
to
a lamp via two wires, there is no flow of electric current. I.C.
4. In your Theory C - Your assertion is that there is NO ELECTRIC
CURRENT -
how or why then does the conductor HEAT UP while energy flow is taking place?
A
perfect conductor (which Heaviside called an obstructor) will not heat up. (cf
superconductors). If a conductor is imperfect, this means that some energy
current enters into the conductor, where it heats up the imperfect conductor
in
the same way as energy current ExH will heat up a
resistor or a lamp. I.C.
Many thanks again,
Collin Milhuisen
************************************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ivor Catt"
<ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
To: "Peter Partridge" <pjp@caboolture.hotkey.net.au>
Cc: <nigelbryancook@hotmail.com>; "mikegi"
<mikegi@prestige.net>;
<energy@synctek.com.au>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 7:43 AM
Subject: Theory C
> The big breakthrough is what I called "Theory C". This
is that when a
> battery is linked to a lamp through two wires, and the lamp
lights, there is
> no electric current. It is important to avoid losing this in the
clutter.
>
> Analogy is useful. Lavoisier replaced phlogiston with oxidation.
Instead of
> burning driving out phlogiston, it now took in oxygen. His
advance can be
> stated clearly, and should be.
>
> The equivalent statement for Theory C is that the battery
delivers
> electromagnetic energy E x H which travels from battery to lamp
through the
> dielectric, guided by the wires. Nothing occurs within the wires,
in the
> same way as when a train travels from London to Edinburgh,
nothing flows,
> and nothing happens, within the rails.
>
> We published this "Theory C. There is no electric
current" in code in one of
> our books, and then disclosed it four years later. It is
astonishing that, a
> quarter of a century later, virtually nobody involved in physics
in general,
> or in electromangetism in particular,
has heard of my assertion. Further,
> there has been no attempt to comment on it, or to contradict it.
it is as
> though the assertion was never made.
>
> Just imagine Lavoisier asserting that burning involves, not the
driving out
> of phlogiston, but the drawing in of oxygen, and a quarter of a
century
> later, 99.9% of experts in that field, when asked about it, will
insist that
> they have never heard the assertion. I am not discussing whether
experts
> agree or disagree. I am talking about whether they assert that
they have
> hear of it.
>
> One might go further. It is probably true that, in the same way
as experts
> in Electromagnetic Theory did not know that Heaviside had made a
> contribution, and did not refer to him in their books on
electromagnetism, so
> five years ago virtually every expert - text book writer of
lecturer - in
> the world would not have heard of Ivor Catt as someone involved
in
> electromagnetic theory. Whether that remains true is unclear
because of the
> power of the www.
>
> It is likely that, 50 and 100 years from now, nobody will know
that the
> assertion was made that electric current does not exist. In the
same way as
> Heaviside disappeared (until I resurrected him), unreferenced in
every text
> book on e-m for fifty years (except for one, whose author did not
read
> Heaviside), so all Catt's ideas may well disappear. Even the
contrapuntal
> model for a charged capacitor may disappear.
>
> The role of the www may prove key. It is possible that, lacking
the www, all
> the work of I Catt and his allies would have disappeared from the
record.
> However, it is difficult to ignore the www. Also, I am
politically more
> sophisticated than earlier suppressees
like Heaviside. This is the key
> experiment going on today; whether a massive body of knowledge in
a key
> subject can be ignored and then suppressed.
>
> The next great contributor to e-m theory after Heaviside has been
totally
> suppressed. His date is 1935/38, and you will not be able to give
me his
> name.
>
> You see why my subject now is the Politics of Knowledge, or
Censorship. All
> other is trivial in a society such as ours.
>
> For Nigel Cook, a follower of mine, and also John Dore, to
continue to
> assert that they are not interested in the politics of e-m, is
absurd. My
> great discovery via e-m is that we live in a deeply anti-scientific
age, and
> that the Enlightenment is over. Anyone who doesn't care whether
the
> Enlightenment is over or not, is very peculiar. They have their
heads firmly
> buried in the sand. The attempt by such people to say that
extraordinary
> breakthroughs like Theory C, or the contrapuntal model for the
charged
> capacitor, have not been noted because of my failure to
communicate
> properly, means they need their heads examined.
>
> Can you imagine earlier people like Nigel Cook telling Lavoisier
that he
> needed to communicate his idea in a different way, or he will be ignored?
> Of course, Mendel and Wegener were ignored. However, Andrew
Huxley, see the
> latest edition of "The Catt Anomaly", told Catt that
important advances in
> his field in the early 20th century were suppressed, and totally
> disappeared. That is the discovery I have made, and the fact that
I have
> proved; that key scientific advances can be totally suppressed
and excised
> >from the record.
>
> The first dislocation in classical electromagnetism, Wireless
World dec78, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/z001.htm
was published 24 years ago. Still,
today, no text book or lecture discussion of Displacement Current refers to
the problem raised there. Thus, well aired information central to a core idea
can be ignored for a quarter of a century. Try searching for
"Displacement Current" on Google, and you will see what I mean.
> Obviously, we wait to see what Catt ridicule as a no. 1 hit on Google,
> right next to these guys' writings, will do. I suspect that they
will ignore
> it. Similarly search for "self-resonant frequency" on
Google. However,
> perhaps Catt only got to no. 1 or no. 3 hit on Google for these
key words
> recently. This is the way in which the present time is
unprecedented, and is
> worth studying. For Nigel Cook, and John Dore, who are both in
pole position
> since they are so expert on e-m and on Catt's e-m, to shut their
eyes to
> what is happening under their noses, is ridiculous.
>
> Ivor Catt
>
|