|
Dear
Archie,
I
will respond to your email in detail later, early next week. However I wanted to make a commentary about human
psychology. Let's imagine that we have two groups A & B discussing
topic C. Topic C is the flow of a binary pulse from transmitter X to
receiver Y, along a twisted pair/coax or another sundry cable.
Group
A has a psycho-scientific belief system that want C to map into perspective
D. (Heaviside)
However,
group B has a psycho-scientific belief that will map C to perspective E.
(conventional model)
Group
A cannot or will not embrace E - they think it is an incorrect scientific model
for example. They believe that E is wrong for logical reasons.
Group
B cannot or will not embrace perspective D not necessarily for logical
reasons but for psychological/emotional reasons.
So,
making it plain, the Heaviside camp (for example) (A),
doesn't agree with the idea that current is a flow of electrons, which
causes a magnetic field H. (E)
They believe a Capacitor is a Transmission line and there is no
such thing as Displacement Current. (D)
Meanwhile,
the MICE and RATS folks (B) cannot accept the Heaviside/Guillimen/Catt
idea (D) that the Poynting vector is the correct explanation of how energy
is transferred.
So,
I ask that, given I posit that you don't embrace the "Heaviside"
model for emotional/psychological reasons, can you show me where there is a
flaw in our scientific logic so you reject perspective D for scientific
reasons alone. Please don't just repeat E's perspective, that will not push
the dialog forward it will just keep us moving in circles as Brian
complained about.
thanks and stay safe,
Malcolm
From: Prof. A Howie <ah30@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2020 7:16 AM
To: Malcolm Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com>
Cc: Brian Josephson <bdj10@icloud.com>;
HARRY RICKER <kc3mx@yahoo.com>;
Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>;
Forrest Bishop <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>;
Alex Yakovlev <alex.yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk>;
Steve Crothers <sjc7541@gmail.com>;
Anthony Davies <tonydavies@ieee.org>;
John Raymond Dore <johnrdore@gmail.com>;
Jack Dinsdale <jack.dinsdale@tinyworld.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Professor Guillemin
Dear Malcolm,
Thanks for sending this. I agree with most of what Prof. Guillemin
writes. He has the essential facts correct. The energy is transported
very largely or perhaps even completely in the EM field outside the
conducting electrodes and the presence of an electrical current in these
electrodes is an essential feature without which the power transmission
would not occur. Unlike most of your colleagues, he steps beyond the
idealised perfect conductor model drawing attention firstly to the ohmic
losses and the need to compensate for them and secondly to the small
longitudinal component of electric field. This longitudinal field
firstly supplies the driving force necessary if current is to flow in a
non-perfect conductor and secondly provides a small additional radial
component of the Poynting vector so that a small amount of the
transported energy is direct into the electrodes to compensate for the
ohmic losses. This is very close to what I said myself in at least
one
earlier message.
I part company with him a bit over some of his commentary on these
facts. Even if the current flow in the electrodes does not carry the
energy, the energy transport would be impossible without it. Secondly
the dissipation which it causes, leading to attenuation of the signal,
may be a weak enough effect to be neglected in most practical
situations, That however does not mean that it does not exist!
Best wishes,
Archie Howie.
On 2020-07-25 14:52, Malcolm Davidson wrote:
> Dear Archie,
>
> In the 10th edition of the Standard Handbook for Electrical
> Engineers, Fink and Carroll there is an excellent comment about
> current and Electromagnetic energy that is worth sharing with you and
> others on this email list. Here is his Wiki page:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Guillemin
>
> Ernst Guillemin - Wikipedia [1]
> Ernst Adolph Guillemin (May 8, 1898 – April 1, 1970) was an
> American electrical engineer and computer scientist at the
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology who spent his career extending
> the art and science of linear network analysis and synthesis..
> Biography. Guillemin was born in 1898, in Milwaukee, and received his
> B.S. (1922) and S.M. (1924) degrees in electrical engineering from the
> ...
> en.wikipedia.org
>
> and here are his comments on the topic of current.
>
> On page 2-40 he also goes on to state;
>
> "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 may be used
> in computing the transmitted energy, one should clearly recognize that
> physically this current produces a loss and in no way has a direct
> part in the phenomenon of power transmission".
>
> These comments were removed in
subsequent editions. The question is
> "Do you agree with him?" These comments are perfectly
aligned with the
> Heaviside perspective and are in keeping with our views today.
>
> thanks and regards,
>
> Malcolm
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Guillemin
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/howie9.htm
"This
longitudinal field
firstly supplies the driving force necessary if current is to flow in a
non-perfect conductor and secondly provides a small additional radial
component of the Poynting vector so that a small amount of the
transported energy is direct into the electrodes to compensate for the
ohmic losses. This is very close to what I said myself in at least
one
earlier message." - Howie9
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Malcolm,
This
extract illustrates the problem of MICE. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/theendofscience.htm ;
the
confrontation between those who have actually looked at a voltage step
along a transmission line and those who have not,
who
only think of a Fourier set of sine waves.
Howie
qualified in a narrow subset discipline. Then society and he himself
thought he had expertise in a much broader range.
In
his case, he thought his grasp extended beyond the sine wave, which it
did not.
Presumably
he thinks imperfect conductors cannot support a TEM wave (which should
be called a TEM step or some such.)
Malcolm,
try to find "at least one earlier message." - Howie9 " and forward it
to me to add to Howie9.
With
imperfect conductors, dispersion (slower rise time) only involves some
energy travelling slower than c.
I
think Howie would have to say that some energy must travel faster than c.
“"This longitudinal field
firstly supplies the driving force necessary if current is to flow in a
non-perfect conductor” – Howie.
Perhaps ask him if this ~”longitudinal
field” is necessary in the case of perfect conductors.
Perhaps an instrumentalist should not study, and teach, the ideal
case. Drop Pythagoras’ triangle formula
because the lines describing the squares do not have zero thickness.
Ivor Catt 2.8.2020
|