|
Also see http://www.ivorcatt.com/585.htm
https://www.georgakopoulos.org/luca-turin/
1.
The unidirectional project.
A
pulse generator delivers a 10nsec pulse (10ft wide in air) down a twisted
pair with Zo = 20ohms. It enters a plastic gutter full of water, where the Zo
remains at 20ohms. The pulse is now going slower, and is 1 ft wide. It
reaches an open circuit, and reflects back towards the source, where it is
terminated and does not reflect. In the final 6 inches, the pulse overlaps
itself, so a physical force occurs between the two wires. However, further
upstream, since the pulse does not overlap itself, there is no physical force
and therefore perhaps no electrolysis.
This
expt is done with pure water and again with acid in
the water.
2.
The second unidirectional project.
The
source delivers a steady voltage into the same twisted pair, which is
terminated at the end in 20 ohms. This time there is never a physical force
between the wires (= electrodes). Does electrolysis result? This expt requires no equipment except a power 20ohm resistor.
Only a battery is needed. How does the amount of electrolysis vary when the
terminating resistor is removed? [Perhaps we reduce the 'battery' (=power
supply) voltage in the second case so that the voltage between the electrodes
remains the same.]
3.
The bi-directional project.
The
twisted pair enters the gutter as before, but then exits from the water and
continues (with Zo still 20 ohms) through air towards a second pulse
generator and 20 ohm termination. Pulses are timed to overlap in the middle
portion of the gutter full of water. What is the amount of hydrolysis (= H
and O bubbling off) in this section compared with the two ends of the guttering?
Energy
considerations. When a TEM wave travels down a coax, no power is dissipated.
So there cannot be electrolysis. However, the problem is that if a TEM wave
reflects, as in conventional electrolysis, still no power is dissipated, so
there should be no electrolysis, because this would require input of energy.
So the electrolysis in the conventional situation relates to imperfections in
the system - for instance leakage (G) in the electrolyte, making it not a
perfect dielectric. However, presumably the acid creates the leakage.
Actually, we know it does, that pure water is an
insulator
and the acid makes it conduct.
Yours
sincerely,
Ivor
Catt
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@'
New
name 582
Ivor
Catt,
121
Westfields,
St.
Albans AL3 4JR,
England.
(01727
864257
22feb97
Luca
Turin,
7D
Macauley Rd.,
London
SW4 0QX
Dear
Luca,
TV
programme on e-m.
TV
did the Horizon programme on your theory on smell [BBC2 Horizon 27nov
(?1995?) 8pm]. I try to respond positively to your
long term attempt to
interest them in a programme on e-m. In particular, I refer to your request
for the definitive experiment which distinguishes between Theory N and
Theory C.
I
have come across 6pp of my writings from 1988, pages 17/8/88/1 thru /6,
and send the originals herewith without taking copies. Please return them
within 6mos.
The
idea is to present as part of a TV programme the thesis that
conventional theory has nothing to say about whether a narrow (20nsec) pulse
of current in all three cases EEB (see below) causes the same effect as
steady current. This leads to the idea that contemporary theory validates
experiment achievement, but does not extend beyond it. Thus, contemporary
theory, e.g. about the electron and electric current, is much like the
theory of the Evil Eye; a comprehensive description which stitches together
diverse experience, lacking the classical requirement of a scientific
theory, that of extension(=prediction). Note that
the Conventional Wisdom
claims some comprehension of EEB, whereas I do not. Thus they must predict,
not I.
In
the EEB experiments, keep close guard on energy, and see whether energy
is lost in the passage of the narrow pulse. Note that a coax. with perfect
conductors will transmit energy (current) without energy loss. So in
principle, we can transmit energy current through EEB baths without loss of
energy, and therefore without the conventional EEB activity (bubbles of O2
etc.). Note also that overlapping (contrapuntal) pulses cause a mechanical
force, whereas one (unidirectional) energy current does not. Physical force
across the dielectric may be essential for EEB activity. (Re the force, see
my book Death of Electric Current p166.)
Electrolysis/Electroplating/Battery
(Mnemonic
EEB)
Electrolysis
Probably
the simplest expt. is electrolysis. Water has permittivity 81.
Therefore velocity of light is 9 times slower than in vacuo,
and a 20nsec
pulse will be 2ft wide. Take a piece of plastic guttering, fill with water.
immerse deeply two parallel conductors. Send a
20nsec pulse down between
them. Under water, it will be 2ft wide. The wires extend off the end, and
are perfectly terminated in (say) a 12 ohm resistor. Does electrolysis
occur?
(20nsec
pulse is generated using 24 TTL 7400 outputs in parallel, at a cost
of less than £5 in hardware. At Motorola Phoenix in 1964, I sent pulses down
between two Al foil conductors floating in water. Speed was low, which was
why I used water.)
Remove
the 12ohm termination so that pulse reflects. Does electrolysis now
occur in the last part of the guttering, where returning pulse overlaps
transmitted tail end. (This last part simulates
conventional electrolysis
where energy current is travelling in both directions, giving a physical
force between the conductors, which may be necessary to cause electrolysis.
Gradually
introduce acid, and see whether electrolysis begins.
Electroplating
Do
same expt. as before, but electroplating. Very sensitive weighing of
conductors before and after will determine whether plating occurred.
Battery
Repeat
expt. with battery situation, taking a very narrow (20nsec) pulse out
of the long battery housed in plastic roof guttering. What results in the
battery materials?
Before
any expt.
Before
any expt., canvass world experts in e-m, E, E and B on what they
expect to happen, There will be no response. However, after expt., same
experts will magically assert that their theory predicted the result!
Problem.
I
have nothing to say about what will happen. However, I do not claim a
comprehensive theory. Also, I claim that conventional twentieth century
information is so hopelessly encrusted with bogus theory that I have
virtually no information on EEB from which to construct extensions to my
Theory C in the direction of EEB.
Support/Funding
Possible
support is from your existing UCL infrastructure, and also from BBC
TV.
How
much support/funding can you obtain for me (with or without you) to do
these experiments in your lab in UCL on some but not all Tuesdays? First
results could probably be obtained quite quickly.
I
believe that if the expts. were
conducted in my home, they would not
'exist'. UCL credibility would give them more chance, although they still
might not 'exist'. In particular, BBC TV has to know about the expts. and
approve in advance. Even token funding would lock them in.
Establishment
Ten
years ago, I canvassed the Establishment and talked to leading experts
on electrolysis/battery etc. The had no comment on
other than steady state
current into/out of EEB. The Establishment needs to be checked out again on
the faint chance that they now have something to say. This is a necessary
precursor to a TV programme. Any Establishment predictions or evasions need
to be recorded in advance. This would be done under the aegis of the BBC.
Yours
sincerely,
Ivor
Catt
cc
David Walton, 103 Cromarty,
Ouston,
Chester le Street,
Co
Durham
Malcolm
Davidson, Sony Music,
550
Madison Ave.,
New
York, N.Y. 10022,
U.S.A.
The
1988 pages (6 off) include the concept of three regions where the energy
current in a battery (/electroplating) may travel; the interface between one
electrode and the liquid; the bulk of the liquid; the interface between the
liquid and the other electrode. We do not know in which region the energy
current vacillates. Probably in the vanishingly thin interface. This might
be checked by Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR), by checking the Zo between
the plates, and how it varies with separation between the plates.
Further
detailed conjecture is in the 6pp.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
New
name 583
Ivor
Catt,
121
Westfields,
St.
Albans AL3 4JR,
England
0727
864257
23sep1994
Mr.
Luca Turin
7D Macauley Rd.,
London, SW4 0QX
Dear
Luca,
You
took me through the fact that U.S. and also British R&D fed off advances
taken from the wartime Germans, or fronted by immigrant Germans, for
instance von Braun. I countered with the very important point that both Tory
(feudal County and ownership of manufacturing industry) and Labour (workers
in manufacturing industry) fight a phoney political battle while all the
time uniting to suppress the third power base, high technology. This idea is
based on the concept of a series of three power bases, feudal-agricultural;
manufacturing industry; high technology. The rearguard fought by feudal
against manufacturing industry is a good model for the present rearguard, by
a united feudal and manuf., against the common enemy, hi-tec. My article THE
NEW BUREAUCRACY, Wireless World dec82 (?), although having faults, is sound
in outlining this matter. I want you to access it. More recently, I have
pursued the parallel in medaeval China, when the
mandarins shut down a fast
growing manufacturing industry, even though they needed its products to fit
out their armies. Their own manufacturing industry posed more of a threat
than the Mongol invaders.
The
above leads us to a similar battle for control in an industrial company,
between three further power bases; owner-entrepreneur; management;
technocracy. Again, the earlier battle illustrates the later. The
entrepreneur v management battle is in Drucker, THE PRACTICE OF MANAGEMENT,
when he discusses how Henry Ford nearly destroyed the Ford Motor Company.
Similarly, today's professional management will destroy a company rather
than allow exploitation of hi-tec opportunities,
for the same reasons as H
Ford's. (However, the theft of a hi-tec option from
the other side of the
world does not pose anything like so much political threat. It reinforces
the thesis that the local technoicrats do not
deserve power.)
An
allied concept is in Galbraith, THE NEW INDUSTRIAL STATE, when he says
that "Power is where the most complex decision making is." When the
most
complex decision making moves into another area, the previous decision
makers will not relinquish control. They are in a position to obstruct the
new decision making, and they do so. They will therefore prevent decision
making from being influenced by the new considertaions
- in the first battle
decisons could not be allowed to profit from
managerial expertese - Ford
fired any manager who made a decision. In the later battle, today's battle,
no technological consideration is allowed to affect a decision made in
hi-tec industry, because the technology-free
management would then lose
control.
Today's
geurilla war between management and technocracy
mirrors the guerilla
war that Henry Ford fought against his company management. My book COMPUTER
WORSHIP pub Pitman 1973 contains a chapter entitled THE
MANAGEMENT-TECHNOLOGY GUERILLA WAR, where the problem was first disclosed.
It will remain with us for some time yet.
Allied
with these ideas is the idea that a paranoid society will only allow
hi-tec product development which does not impact
usefully on society,
because demonstration of usefulness would result in too much power accruing
to the technocrats. This explains the absurd ultra-hi
tec weapons project,
which everyone knows will fail, and which must fail. Even though a
politically safe product because socially useless, technocrats are not
allowed to influence the specification of these white elephants, like AWACS
or TORNADO, because they might fight for product specification which could
be attained. It is most important that major, already socially useless,
projects fail in order to discredit and therefore control the technocracy.
Poltically, the ideal is to abandon the local
project after greast loss of
money, and then buy in from abroad. The fear that the technocracy, by
developing products etc. which are valuable to society, would partake of
political power, is deeply feared by the technology-free ruling rump. This
is why the development of medical electronics is obstructed and also feared.
It technocrats saved too many lives, the battle for
control would be lost.
1.
The unidirectional project.
A
pulse generator delivers a 10nsec pulse (10ft wide in air) down a twisted
pair with Zo = 20ohms. It enters a plastic gutter full of water, where the
Zo remains at 20ohms. The pulse is now going slower, and is 1 ft wide. It
reaches an open circuit, and reflects back towards the source, where it is
terminated and does not reflect. In the final 6 inches, the pulse overlaps
itself, so a physical force occurs between the two wires. However, further
upstream, since the pulse does not overlap itself, there is no physical
force and therefore perhaps no electrolysis.
This
expt is done with pure water and again with acid in
the water.
2.
The second unidirectional project.
The
source delivers a steady voltage into the same twisted pair, which is
terminated at the end in 20 ohms. This time there is never a physical force
between the wires (= electrodes). Does electrolysis result? This expt
requires no equipment except a power 20ohm resistor. Only a battery is
needed. How does the amount of electrolysis vary when the terminating
resistor is removed? [Perhaps we reduce the 'battery' (=power supply)
voltage in the second case so that the voltage between the electrodes
remains the same.]
3.
The bi-directional project.
The
twisted pair enters the gutter as before, but then exits from the water
and continues (with Zo still 20 ohms) through air towards a second pulse
generator and 20 ohm termination. Pulses are timed to overlap in the middle
portion of the gutter full of water. What is the amount of hydrolysis (= H
and O bubbling off) in this section compared with the two ends of the
guttering?
Energy
considerations. When a TEM wave travels down a coax, no power is
dissipated. So there cannot be elctrolysis.
However, the problem is that if
a TEM wave reflects, as in conventional electrolysis, still no power is
dissipated, to there should be no electrolysis, because this would require
input of energy. So the electrolysis in the conventional situation relates
to imperfections in the system - for instance leakage (G) in the
electrolyte, making it not a perfect dielectric. However, presumably the
acid creates the leakage. Actually, we know it does, that pure water is an
insulator and the acid makes it conduct.
Yours
sincerely,
Ivor
Catt
..
EEB writings to Ernest
Cooley et al. sent aug 05
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@''
The following files in my old computer refer to EEB
C\EM\EEB\x2m.doc
C\EM\LETTERS\ti231tur.doc
C\EM\LETTERS\y17aince.doc
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.ivorcatt.com/585.htm
On the phone
with Forrest recently I discussed EEB, which he says Cameron is keen to
start.
The key idea is
that during electrolysis, electroplating etc., there is always a physical
force of attraction between the two electrodes because of the voltage
difference between them and therefore the electrostatic attraction between
the two electrodes. For decades I have had the idea of sending a TEM Wave
down between the electrodes and correctly terminating the two
“electrodes/wires” so that there is no reflection. In such a situation, the
electrostatic attraction between the two electrodes is exactly cancelled by
the repulsion on account of the electric currents down the electrodes. This
is a very easy and cheap experiment if one knows the characteristic impedance
down between the two electrodes, perhaps 20 ohms. I did not think of the next
step until last week. If the Zo is 20 ohms and we terminate in 10 ohms, the
repulsive force due to the currents will exceed the attractive force. That
is, we can go further than remove the force (possibly) necessary to cause
electrolysis etc, and replace it by a force in the opposite direction.
Forrest agreed
that it is important to do this very simple experiment as soon as possible.
If it shows that the physical force of attraction between the electrodes,
which has always existed in the past, is unnecessary, then no further
experiments on the lines of EEB are anything like so useful.
Perhaps I
should repeat that whatever the results, they will neither confirm nor
contradict any theory of mine.
Ivor
15 February 2012
..
.
. .
|