|
Re: The Heaviside Question
Inbox
|
Prof. A Howie <ah30@cam.ac.uk>
|
|
Sun, 12 Jul
2020, 14:16
|
|
|
|
to me, Forrest, HARRY, Ed, madmac, Malcolm, Steve, Monika, Alex, Anthony, John, philip, michael.pepper, ekkehard, Phil, Brian
|
|
Dear Ivor,
The "one way street property of the diode" is certainly something
where
you are a great expert!
As I said before, but did not seem to get the message through, electron
microscopes as well as electron synchrotrons offer striking and
extremely useful examples of electron current flow that is also
understood in great detail. In the electron microscope the electrons are
accelerated to a precise high energy in a static, highly stabilised,
electric field established between a cathode and anode.
Perhaps your antipathy to static fields comes from the problem of
conveying energy through ExB when both E and B are
static?
Archie.
On 2020-07-12 13:00, Ivor Catt wrote:
> " But it is certainly undeniable that electrons flow through a
vacuum
> in vacuum tubes." - Harry.
> I deny it. I have to deny it.
> The ExH energy enters the vacuum tube
sideways, and reflects. All the
> movement is sideways, not between anode and cathode. The ExH energy
> enters the cathode sideways at the speed of light, and reflects. In a
> triode or transistor, this occurs between anode and grid. This causes
> variation in the ExH energy arriving at the
speed of light between
> anode and cathode. All of this develops from the realisation that ExH
> energy cannot stand still, and that the electron is the outcome of
> trying to make sense of it all starting from a base of obvious error.
> You cannot build a sound house on shifting sands.
> First analyse the diode. The ExH energy
arrives at the diode sideways,
> and reflects with or without inversion.
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/6_6.htm
> Before that, analyse the charging or discharging capacitor.
> http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm
>
> Come with me and start to build a house on sound foundations. Don't
> start with dubious things like the electron, which is not fit for
> purpose. See cattq.
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
> After clearing away the misinformation, there is much work to be done.
> JJ Thomson talked to my co-author Lynch about how he discovered the
> electron. Lynch published on cattq, and also
gave the keynote speech
> on the centenary of JJ's discovery, inviting me to the IEE celebration
> dinner. It's all in the family, and
nothing is sacrosanct. The
> electron will presumably turn out to be some artifact deriving from
> the wave, as Jennison said
> https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OdnsCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=jennison+%2B+%22university+of+kent%22+%2B+electron&source=bl&ots=Tp7f_Jw6Dp&sig=ACfU3U2G-3UAJfcIieMwFsvNy9B38BM3lQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLwsG_1MfqAhXRtHEKHRJXCTAQ6AEwBnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=jennison%20%2B%20%22university%20of%20kent%22%20%2B%20electron&f=false
> , and Catt attempted (and failed) to show.
>
> It's all waves, no particles. With no instantaneous action at a
> distance, parts of a particle would be in other universes from other
> parts; ridiculous.
> Ivor
> Ivor Catt
>
>
[2]
> Virus-free. www.avast.com [2]
>
> On Sat, 11 Jul 2020 at 18:17, Forrest Bishop <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Harry,
>>
>> The passages in Griffiths about having the wire be NEUTRAL are
>> extremely important. No, he doesn't have any net charge inside the
>> wire- the whole thing HAS to be neutral.
>>
>> ...mainstream Theory N comes in many different
>> flavors and has several different schisms
within it, not
>> the least of which is the division between electric circuit
>> and transmission line,
>> a division that runs so deep it is reflected in the very layout of
>> university campus architecture.
>>
>> Theory N, Version 1, Dept. of Electrical Engineering:
>> The lines are charged. (Westerners) This is needed to
>> explain transmission line theory as well as the voltage
>> between the wires of an electric circuit, a topic gone
>> missing from Griffiths [8], Jackson [10], and others of
>> that genre.
>>
>> Theory N, Version 2, Dept of Physics: The lines
>> are neutral. (Southerners) This is needed in order to
>> derive Maxwell’s Equations, Ampere’s laws in particular.
>> Griffiths [8] explains, p196, 202, 226.
>>
> https://www.scribd.com/document/320890002/The-Forbidden-Equation-i-qc
>>
>> This is what he (all of them) have to have in order to maintain
>> Ampere's circuital law (Del cross B = mu * J), which they need in
>> order to get to Maxwell's Equations. It is the step just before
>> adding in the displacement current term to Ampere's Law. In that
>> sense it is a more foundational con. It goes like this:
>>
>> Step 1. Ignore the net line charge that created the electric field
>> between the two wires. that the voltmeter is claimed to read.
>> Step 2. Now claim that Ampere's Circuital Law (or equivalently, the
>> Biot-Savart Law) is 'almost' true...
awaiting Maxwell's Displacement
>> Current.
>> Step 3. Paste Maxwell's Displacement Current term onto Ampere's
>> Circuital Law and work up to claiming this to be the greatest
>> victory of Mathematical Physics.
>> Step 4. Now perform additional mathematical hijinks on that result
>> to come up with the Wave Equations of Electromagetism.
>> Step 5. Lo! Maxwell and his math has
revealed that Light is
>> Electromagnetic! (There is a Luciferian /Promethean implication
>> here.)
>>
>> There is another problem- the wires cannot have any net charge or
>> charge density) on them according to the physics textbooks. My
>> physics professor (Stern, U. of Washington) was quite insistent on
>> this point, as is Griffiths, the author of the textbook he used.
>>
>> Griffiths teaches [10] p. 196: (when a current is present) “I
>> could hold up a test charge near these wires and there would be no
>> force on it, indicating that the wires are in fact electrically
>> neutral”. [10] p. 202: “A neutral wire, of course, contains as
>> many stationary positive charges as mobile negative ones. The former
>> do not contribute to the current.” [10] p. 226: “But if we
>> arrange to keep the wire _neutral_, by embedding in it an equal
>> amount of opposite charge at rest…but of course this is precisely
>> what happens in an ordinary current-carrying wire.” (_emphasis in
>> original_)
>> http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf// ...
s_6554.pdf [1]
>>
>> By claiming the wires are not neutral, you have contradicted
>> mainstream Physics.
>> By claiming the wires are not charged, you have contradicted
>> Electrical Engineering.
>>
>> Quite a dilemma.
>>
>> Forrest
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HARRY RICKER
>> Sent: Jul 11, 2020 9:18 AM
>> To: Ivor Catt , Ed Dellian , Forrest
Bishop
>> Cc: Malcolm Davidson , Steve Crothers , Monika Vandory
, Alex
>> Yakovlev , Archie Howie , Anthony Davies , John Raymond Dore ,
>> philip holland , "michael.pepper@ucl.ac.uk" ,
>> "ekkehard@ekkehard-friebe.de" , Phil
Reed
>> Subject: Re: The Heaviside Question
>>
>> Forrest,
>>
>> With all due respect to Malcolm and Ivor, I don't see the Heaviside
>> Question as getting to the crux of the difficulty. I don't think the
>> posters who commented really understand the physics involved.
>> According to my field theory textbooks, there can be no longitudinal
>> electric field force inside a conductor. Despite this the commenters
>> assert that there is an electric field force that causes the
>> electron motion inside the wires. Frankly, every time I see the free
>> electron model discussed in textbooks I think, how is that possible
>> since the electric field is not allowed inside a conductor according
>> to my field theory books?
>>
>> I was pretty shocked that Griffiths says there is no electric field
>> between the wires. I suppose he thinks it is only inside the wires.
>> But that is contrary to field theory taught in all of the standard
>> textbooks. What is Griffiths thinking?
>>
>> I have put a lot of thought into this difficulty and my solution is
>> that there are two different models that need to be appreciated. The
>> first one is the electron theory of electricity. This model doesn't
>> seem to apply very well to high conductivity wires. In this case we
>> can see by measurements that the electricity moves according to a
>> wave model and not according to a mechanical one using a water or
>> gas in a pipe model. The other model uses the water in a pipe idea
>> and treats the electrons as a gas or fluid. But that model doesn't
>> work for capacitors, since that involves an open pipe, which doesn't
>> work. This brings in the displacement current fudge. That supposes
>> that something mystical, called displacement, completes the flow of
>> electrons through the open circuit. It is a pretty bad ad hoc
>> hypothesis. Ivor was certainly correct in rejecting this idea and
>> replacing it with the contrapuntal capacitor.
>>
>> But it is certainly undeniable that electrons flow through a vacuum
>> in vacuum tubes. There the flow of electrons takes the place of the
>> wave flow of electricity. But the electricity flow is not directly
>> controlled but the tube. It shunts the flow of power from the
>> source, it doesn't actually control the flow of power by the flow of
>> electrons. It acts to shunt power from the load, it doesn't really
>> control the power directly. You really need to understand this
>> principle. It is also used in semiconductors. They don't actually
>> control the flow of electrons to the load, they divert power into
>> the electron device away from the load. So
there is a very common
>> misunderstanding of how electron devices actually work. They don't
>> actually amplify electrical power they do it indirectly by shunting
>> the power away from the load. I think this misunderstanding is the
>> root of the failure to understand the correct theory of electricity.
>>
>>
>> So my view is that what we call electric current is displacement
>> current, that being the flow of electric charge along the
>> transmission line. This is just another way of saying the flow is
>> power as given by EXH. But we are focusing on the magnetic field
>> when we say displacement current. There is of course an electric
>> field as well given by E=ZoH.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Friday, July 10, 2020, 10:12:57 AM EDT, Forrest Bishop
>> <forrestb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is a discussion of The Heaviside Question here-
>> Page 1
>>
> http://relativityxchange.1bp1.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=51&sid=119fda9e60ae8e02dce55ad2da142003
>> Page 4
>>
> http://relativityxchange.1bp1.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=51&p=1388&sid=119fda9e60ae8e02dce55ad2da142003#p1388
>>
>> Someone is working on animation. My latest comments-
>>
>> Better. This is a useful animation. The plus and minus signs help.
>> Mainstream convention is to put plus on the top ("upper")
and the
>> minus on the bottom ("lower" wire), as with circuit
diagrams.
>>
>> Electric Disconnection. Can you add little angels or something that
>> grab onto the disconnected, un-terminated Transverse Electric field
>> lines and carry them over from one electron to the next electron?
>>
>> Telepathic Communication. Or do the electrons inside the wire cause
>> the external TEM wave somehow? It is not clear which causes which.
>> If the moving electrons are the juice called electric current, how
>> do they know that they need to push-and-pull the external TEM
>> wave/step along at the speed of light of the external dielectric?
>> How do the moving red and green lines (inside the conducting wire?)
>> know about the material properties of the wire insulation and air
>> gap, aka the dielectric? Maybe add some sort of signaling
apparatus
>> between the conductor and the insulator.
>>
>> Moving charges generate static field? Behind the step-wavefront, we
>> see blue dots moving to and fro,
representing electrons in the wire.
>> Is the transverse electric field, measured by the voltmeter, static
>> here? Even though the net-line charges are moving in opposite
>> directions? How is that supposed to work?
>>
>> The Heaviside Question. Also, how can we illustrate how the
>> transverse electric or magnetic force vectors can cause a
>> longitudinal force on the electrons, or vice versa? Vector diagram?
>>
>> Forrest
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HARRY RICKER
>> Sent: Jul 7, 2020 5:12 AM
>> To: Ivor Catt , Ed Dellian
>> Cc: Forrest Bishop , Malcolm Davidson , Steve Crothers , Monika
>> Vandory , Alex Yakovlev , Archie Howie ,
Anthony Davies , John
>> Raymond Dore , philip holland , "michael.pepper@ucl.ac.uk" ,
>> "ekkehard@ekkehard-friebe.de" , Phil
Reed
>> Subject: Re: The Heaviside Question
>>
>> Ed,
>>
>> Malcolm has already rejected your claim, and I think that resolves
>> the problem of whether or not you answered the question as follows:
>> “What is the force pushing electrons back towards the source as
>> shown in the top wire”
>>
>> I was unable to ascertain any place in your response where you
>> answered that. It seems that we are now discussing your theory of
>> how electromagnetic energy travels. You say in your theory that
>> electrons do not move, and I objected that that means there would be
>> no magnetic field produced by current of electrons also known as
>> electric current or simply current. You agreed with that and
>> insisted that motion of electrons does not produce a magnetic field.
>> Did I understand that correctly? I don't see how anything that you
>> are claiming answers the question and the theory you are asserting
>> doesn't seem to be in accordance with established physics, so
>> perhaps you should withdraw it.
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 7, 2020, 04:46:58 AM EDT, Ed Dellian
>> <ed.dellian@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>> Am 07.07.2020 um 10:30 schrieb Ivor Catt:
>>
>> I apologise to this circulation.
>> Ivor Catt
>>
>> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>> We have been here before with Tombe. He
captured the group who were
>> discussing electromagnetic theory and imposed his stuff about Epola,
>> which I had never heard of. There was a whole system developed for
>> people to discuss electromagnetic theory, which he replaced with
>> gobbledeygook (Epola).
>>
>> A decade later he emailed me to say he had never understood cattq.
>> Presumably that is why he thought it was ethical to dump his epola
>> rubbish on it.
>>
>> Now we have Ed Dellian with his Newton’s
Cradle. Do we now do to
>> him what the ignorant Science Establishment (which Howie calls
>> “senior scientists”) did to Catt for 40 years; ignore him?
>>
>> Tombe blew away, but now we have another
“Gotcha” in Dellian.
>>
>> Dellian has never even asserted that he
had a grasp of
>> electromagnetic theory.
>>
>> False. The person who sold his reputation as a scientist and as a
>> man in order to save some money now distributes blatant lies. He
>> knows very well (I often enough told him, adding quotes etc.):
>> Dellian _has _studied Newton's work "Opticks" (1717) which is a work
>> on "light", which is an "electromagnetic"
entity, as everybody
>> knows. Dellian _has also _studied
Maxwell's "Treatise on
>> Electricity" (two volumes). Note: The man who sold his
reputation as
>> a scientist and as a man in order to save some money admittedly
>> never studied Newton and never Maxwell! No further comment.
>>
>> Remember that Howie's approach to Theory D is the same as our
>> approach to Ed's "Newton's Cradle".
>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x8cbwash.htm
>>
>> I want to say Howie sees Theory D as Ivor's "absurd ego trip", but
>> then Howie has taken the fifth amendment, and said Ivor
>> misrepresents what Howie says.
>>
>> Ivor Catt
>>
>> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>> Hoist with his own petard
>>
>> Description
>>
>> Description"Hoist with his own
petard" is a phrase from a speech in
>> William Shakespeare's play Hamlet that has become proverbial. The
>> phrase's meaning is literally that a bomb-maker is blown up by his
>> own bomb, and indicates an ironic reversal, or poetic justice.
>> Wikipedia
>>
>> @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>>
>> Aha; eventually one substantive difficulty. First: Right, the
>> electrons in the wire are not moving (this is the important
>> discovery and the central message of my correct answer to the
>> Heaviside Question, as Malcolm Davidson has admitted). Second:
>> Right, there's a "magnetic field". How come? The idea that
to
>> generate this field would require electrons to actually move is not
>> conclusive. It is just as false as the idea of an "electric
current"
>> of wandering electrons in the wire itself. Your
reasoning here is
>> circular. Note that the "staying at rest" of the
"jostling"
>> electrons is an experimentally established
fact (by analogy; the
>> cradle). The magnetic field is also an experimentally established
>> fact. Therefore, this field cannot depend on motion of the
>> electrons. This is a nice instance to prove that a logical
circle
>> can only be overcome by natural experience and experiment.
>>
>> This result must do here. More information may come from a careful
>> study of the Newton's Cradle experiment.
>>
>> By the way: Has anybody asked you to give an authoritative
"final
>> judgement"? What have you to do with the "Heaviside
Question", since
>> your name is not on the relevant website? Maybe it could be a good
>> idea to establish an independent (!) jury. But this would require
>> that I agree, wouldn't it?
>>
>> Harry
>>
>> Ed Dellian
>>
>> [2]
>> Virus-free. www.avast.com [2]
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 at 07:18, Ed Dellian
<ed.dellian@t-online.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Am 06.07.2020 um 23:57 schrieb HARRY
RICKER:
>>
>> Forrest,
>>
>> Regarding your response to Ed Dellian's
supposed answer to the
>> Heaviside Question. The discussion regarding the prize money is
>> moot, since Ed is not claiming the prize money. That is my
>> understanding of what he is saying.
>>
>> Harry,
>>
>> this was right until yesterday in a certain sense. I had proposed to
>> Ivor Catt (i) to accept my answer to the
Heaviside Question, and
>> after that (ii) let Malcolm Davidson and Stephen Crothers decide
>> what should happen with the prize money won. But Ivor Catt yesterday
>> rejected my proposal for a second time, and the impartiality of
>> Davidson and Crothers is meanwhile in
doubt. I wouldn't propose them
>> as a jury for a third time.
>>
>> He is asserting that he correctly answered the question, and that is
>> the issue we ought to be discussing. He says that Malcolm answered
>> with "tricky semantics". That is amusing since I thought
what Ed
>> said is an example of that.
>>
>> I think you rebutted what Ed said, but I have to say that what Ed
>> said makes no sense at all as physics and so is largely just tricky
>> semantics without any scientific basis. No, not correct. The
>> "scientific basis" and "physics" you're missing
is: observing the
>> Newton's Cradle experiment. Just observe what happens. Experience,
>> observation and experiment have always been the most reliable
>> foundation of scientific knowledge. "Semantics" and
"word salad" is
>> what you muse about "elasticity", "sheer waves",
"velocity of
>> sound", etc. Nothing of all that can you observe when the
Cradle is
>> swinging on your desk. You are disguising your ignorance with
>> hypotheses and technical terms that mean nothing more to the public
>> but a parrot's talk. Well, I admit that your technical jargon
>> implies concepts that "work". It is an
"instrumentalist" jargon,
>> maybe "effective" when correctly applied, but clearly not
aiming at
>> a description of "what actually happens in nature". Every
serious
>> instrumentalist would admit. Unfortunately, you are confusing your
>> jargon with the reality of nature.
>>
>> My main objection to what Ed says, is that there can be no
>> generation of magnetic field since the electrons inside the wires
>> are not moving. Perhaps we ought to give Ed a chance to clarify what
>> he is saying, because I didn't understand it, and if I was to sit in
>> judgement of his claim, I would reject it as not being clearly
>> presented, and consistently understandable. So
it is word salad in
>> my opinion. Let's give him a chance to clear up the confusion in his
>> statements, before we render a final judgement.
>>
>> Aha; eventually one substantive difficulty. First: Right, the
>> electrons in the wire are not moving (this is the important
>> discovery and the central message of my correct answer to the
>> Heaviside Question, as Malcolm Davidson has admitted). Second:
>> Right, there's a "magnetic field". How come? The idea that
to
>> generate this field would require electrons to actually move is not
>> conclusive. It is just as false as the idea of an "electric
current"
>> of wandering electrons in the wire itself. Your
reasoning here is
>> circular. Note that the "staying at rest" of the
"jostling"
>> electrons is an experimentally established
fact (by analogy; the
>> cradle). The magnetic field is also an experimentally established
>> fact. Therefore, this field cannot depend on motion of the
>> electrons. This is a nice instance to prove that a logical
circle
>> can only be overcome by natural experience and experiment.
>>
>> This result must do here. More information may come from a careful
>> study of the Newton's Cradle experiment.
>>
>> By the way: Has anybody asked you to give an authoritative
"final
>> judgement"? What have you to do with the "Heaviside
Question", since
>> your name is not on the relevant website? Maybe it could be a good
>> idea to establish an independent (!) jury. But this would require
>> that I agree, wouldn't it?
>>
>> Harry Ed.
>>
>> On Monday, July 6, 2020, 04:14:12 PM EDT, Forrest Bishop
>> <forrestb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, now I have seen the ED response to the Heaviside question.,
>> and now I remember seeing it before. It was so badly in error that I
>> had thrown it out.
>>
>> 1. " Newton's pendulum experiments do not in any way depend on
the
>> elasticity of the pendulum bobs."
>> Rebuttal. The speed of sound in a material object is governed in
>> part by the elasticity of that object.
>>
> https://www.answers.com/Q/How_does_elasticity_affect_the_speed_of_sound
>>
>>
>> 2. " the speed required for the generation of the momentum that
>> wanders as a vector quantity through the pendulum row."
>> Rebuttal. This is word salad.
>>
>> 3."The propagation speed of "Newton's cradle wave"
has nothing to do
>> with the "velocity of light". Rather it is the speed
required for
>> the generation of the momentum that wanders as a vector quantity
>> through the pendulum row."
>> Rebuttal. The speed of the compression/rarefaction and shear waves
>> in the material has everything to do with the speed of sound in that
>> material.
>> https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sound-speed-solids-d_713.html
>> For 1% Carbon Steel we have 5940 m/s for longitudinal waves, and
>> 3220 m/s for shear waves.
>> These are the experimental results that govern how the Newton's
>> Cradle behaves.
>> A wave in a material cannot move faster than the speed of sound in
>> that material (aside from the blast wave, which is a destructive
>> process).
>>
>> 4."The first ball in the row, however, will nevertheless stay
at
>> rest, and so will all the other billiard balls also remain at
rest"
>> Rebuttal. The center of gravity of the
first ball moves forward (due
>> to internal compression/shear wave), then back, returning to rest
>> after being in a state of motion. It did not "stay at
rest" after
>> being hit by the cue.
>>
>> Forrest Bishop,
>> Dept. of Aeronautics & Astronautics, University of Washington
>> http://forrestbishop.mysite.com/Space.html
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: Ed Dellian <ed.dellian@t-online.de>
>> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 13:10
>> Subject: Re: Did Howie just change from Southerner to Westerner?
>> To: Prof. A Howie <ah30@cam.ac.uk>, Forrest Bishop
>> <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>
>> Cc: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>, Steve Crothers
>> <sjc7541@gmail.com>, Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk>,
Malcolm
>> Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com>,
Anthony Davies
>> <tonydavies@ieee.org>, Alex Yakovlev
>> <Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk>, John
Raymond Dore
>> <johnrdore@gmail.com>, <michael.pepper@ucl.ac.uk>,
>> <massimiliano.pieraccini@unifi.it>
>>
>> Dear Professor Howie,
>>
>> unfortunately I must insist on stating that Newton's pendulum
>> experiments do not in any way depend on the elasticity of the
>> pendulum bobs. I refer to his Principia, the Scholium after
>> Corollary 6 to the laws of motion. He says: "Further, lest
anyone
>> object that the rule which this experiment was designed to prove
>> presupposes that bodies are either absolutely hard or at least
>> perfectly elastic and thus of a kind which do not occur naturally, I
>> add that the experiments just described work equally well with soft
>> bodies and with hard ones, since surely they do not in any way
>> depend on the condition of hardness".
>>
>> It is true, however, what you say: The propagation speed of
>> "Newton's cradle wave" has nothing to do with the
"velocity of
>> light". Rather it is the speed required for the generation of
the
>> momentum that wanders as a vector quantity through the pendulum row.
>> This "speed of generation" is a natural constant of
dimensions
>> "element of space over element of time" according to
Galileo's
>> "Discorsi" of 1638, to which
Newton here refers. Note that the
>> "velocity of light" is _not a __natural constant_ but
depends on the
>> medium through which the light is propagated, being a characteristic
>> not of "light" but of the medium.
>>
>> By the way, in order to better explain my position I add a copy of
>> the email I've sent some hours ago to "TheHeavisidePrize@gmail.com",
>> initiated by the "Open Call" concerning "The
Heaviside question".
>>
>> Sincerely yours,
>>
>> Ed Dellian.
>>
>> "I answer the Heaviside Question “What is the force pushing
>> electrons back towards the source as shown in the top wire” as
>> follows:
>>
>> 1. A force that pushes an electron in a wire _forward _(away from a
>> source) is a cause that generates as its effect a _momentum
>> _(electron mass times velocity). This causal generation of an effect
>> by a generating cause happens in time and space, analogously to the
>> generation of momentum of a billiard ball at rest, struck by a cue
>> stick. The constant (!) space-time relation of generation of
>> momentum can be understood as the "speed of generation" of
the
>> momentum of the billiard ball, (or, of an electron as well). All
>> this has been known since the time of Galileo Galilei and Isaac
>> Newton.
>>
>> 2. If there is a row of billiard balls at rest, in contact with one
>> another (analogously, a row of electrons), the ball struck by the
>> cue stick, when it meets the row, will transmit its momentum to the
>> first billiard ball in the row, coming itself to rest. The first
>> ball in the row, however, will nevertheless stay at rest, and so
>> will all the other billiard balls also remain at rest. Only the last
>> in the row will move, exhibiting the very momentum (mass times
>> velocity) that has evidently been transmitted through the row. Note
>> that this momentum is transmitted at a very high speed through the
>> row of billard balls staying at rest. The
speed of transmission is
>> evidently not a velocity of material motion. It is the always equal
>> (constant) "speed of generation of momentum in space and time",
>> required for transmitting the momentum from one billiard ball at
>> rest (analogously, from one electron at rest) to the next in a
>> successive cause-effect interaction.
>>
>> 3. The billiard ball analogy can also be understood with the device
>> called "Newton's Cradle": a row of equal pendulums hanging
in
>> contact with each other. The experiment shows that the initially
>> generated momentum wanders through the row of pendulum bobs hanging
>> at rest, the momentum wandering at a very high speed: It is the
>> speed of space-time generation of momentum by a generating cause
>> (force). Accordingly the experiment shows
that there is no "force
>> that pushes the pendulum bobs forward". Consequently, by
analogy,
>> there is also no force to push the electrons in a wire "back
towards
>> the source" (quoting the "Heaviside question"). The
only acting
>> force is the one delivered from the source to generate as its effect
>> the vector momentum that wanders at high speed through the electrons
>> at rest, performing a directed successive cause-effect interaction
>> without any material motion of the intermediate electrons.
>>
>> Ed Dellian, Berlin, Germany. Author and
editor. Translator (from
>> Newton's Latin) of Newton's Principia into German, edited 1988
>> (Hamburg). Also translator (from Galileo's
Italian and Latin) of
>> Galileo's Discorsi into German, edited
2015 (Hamburg)".
>>
>> Am 10.06.2020 um 13:28 schrieb Prof. A
Howie:
>> My earlier message was simply trying to clarify for those who need
>> it the possibility that atoms, electrons or other entities in a
>> medium which can individually move at a characteristic velocity v,
>> can in a coordinated fashion generate through their interaction a
>> wave with a velocity much higher than v. This was definitely
the
>> initial issue in my discussions with Ivor Catt when he kept lots
>> arguments about rolling lines of eggs from London to Oxford.
>>
>> This was before all the East-West, North-South arguments came
up. I
>> don't think that such polarisation issues are directly relevant to
>> the specific point I was trying to make. I may have
misunderstood
>> the polarisation of the Mexican wave but it can propagate faster
>> than people can raise there
hats. Newton's cats cradle illustrates
>> the point for longitudinally polarised waves but, pace Ed Dalian,
>> practical ball bearings will have an elasticity and the ultimate
>> wave velocity will depend on that of the elastic wave which
>> propagates the collision shock from one side of each ball to the
>> other. There is no suggestion that this Newton's cradle wave
>> propagates at the velocity of light. An obvious exception to
all
>> this is sound waves in a gas which have a velocity similar to that
>> of the molecules which are mostly far apart but interact in close
>> collisions that only occur after they have had time
to travel and
>> meet one another.
>>
>> I apologise if everyone already understands this simple and limited
>> point. On the polarisation issue, I guess that I was an East-West
>> man at the beginning so long ago and probably remain so.
>>
>> Archie Howie
>>
>> On 2020-06-10 06:45, Forrest Bishop wrote:
>> This is a very interesting tell, Mr. Howie: "...more mysterious
and
>> raises these dangerous issues about where the instructions are
>> coming
>> from."
>> Who exactly have you been receiving your instructions from, all
>> these
>> years?
>>
>> Please correct me if I am mistaken- The Mexican Wave is a Southerner
>> bid. There is no transport along the wave, from the West. Instead,
>> the
>> electrons rise up, like the hands and hats of the Mexican Wavers,
>> and
>> fall back after the wave has passed. This is the argument of the
>> Southerners like Pepper, who claim that the electrons rise up from
>> within the wire, to assist the TEM wave's passage and to provide the
>> necessary voltage difference between the wires.
>>
>> Notice that the Mexican Wave and Newton's Cradle are two completely
>> different mechanisms. Newton'ts Cradle is
a Westerner argument. The
>> Mexican Wave, although it's literally a hand-wave, is a Southerner
>> response, not incompatible with Morgenthaler-
>>
>> =============
>> Morgenthaler states that "Mobile negative charge which is
>> neutralized
>> by the fixed positive charge of the lattice simply moves very
>> slightly
>> toward or away from the surface of the conductor as the electric
>> field
>> of the TEM pulse moves by. This creates the surface charges that are
>> needed in order to originate and terminate the electric field."
>> Morgenthaler, Frederic R., _The Power and Beauty of Electromagnetic
>> Fields_, 2011.
>>
>> ============
>>
>> So now, just today at 7:48 AM on my internet clock, after pondering
>> this matter FOR FORTY YEARS, Howie has apparently switched sides.
>>
>> We hashed out Newton's Cradle with David Tombe
and others, including
>> Brian Josephson, many years ago in a discussion on The Catt
>> Question.
>> Tombe finally came around to the notion
that maybe there is
>> something
>> to TCQ. It took him three years and hundreds of emails to get to
>> that-
>> after many expositions on pressure waves, hydraulics, etc., and he
>> ain't exactly bought in to the clownworld paradigm. The short of it
>> is, Newton's Cradle has the same problem that the other
"Westerner"
>> pressure wave theories have: the wave cannot exceed the speed of
>> sound
>> for the material, be it liquid, gas, electron gas, or solid. Recall
>> that all mainstream bulk-material interactions are mediated by the
>> very same electrostatic/ magnetostatic/ electromagnetic forces, so
>> electrons in a Drude gas don't get a
special pass here.
>>
>> _From: "Prof. A Howie"_
>>
>> _To: Ed Dellian_
>> _Cc: Steve Crothers, Brian Josephson, Ivor Catt, Malcolm Davidson,
>> Anthony Davies, Alex Yakovlev, Forrest Bishop, John Raymond Dore,
>> michael.pepper@, massimiliano.pieraccini@_
>> _Subject: Re: question_
>> _Date: Jun 9, 2020 7:48 AM_
>>
>> _Dear Ed Dalian,_
>>
>> _Thank you for this prompt comment with which I agree. The contact
>> force_
>> _and elastic interactions between the ball bearings in the cradle_
>> _generate a compressive wave which can indeed have a much higher
>> velocity_
>> _than the ball bearings themselves. The interaction in the football_
>> _crowd and the origin of the correlation needed to produce the
>> Mexican_
>> _wave is obviously more mysterious and raises these dangerous
>> issues_
>> _about where the instructions are coming from. With charged
>> electrons_
>> _the connection to electrostatic forces and EM waves allows the_
>> _difference in the two velocities to be sustained._
>>
>> _Archie Howie._
>>
>> _On 2020-06-09 15:23, Ed Dellian wrote:_
>> _> Dear Prof. Howie,_
>> _>_
>> _> as you refer to the so-called Mexican wave I want to point to
>> the_
>> _> example of "Newton's cradle" which seems to fit much
better. The_
>> _> experiment shows to the eye that "momentum mv"
wanders through
>> the_
>> _> pendulum row at a "velocity" much higher than v._
>> _>_
>> _> Ed Dellian, Berlin, Germany._
>>
>> _> Am 09.06.2020 um 15:52 schrieb Prof.
A Howie:_
>> _>_
>> _>> Dear Steve Crothers,_
>> _>>_
>> _>> Nearly 40 years ago I tried without success to convince
Ivor
>> Catt_
>> _>> that the many relatively slow moving electrons in a wire
could_
>> _>> nevertheless be linked to an EM wave propagating at the
velocity
>> of_
>> _>> light. I used the analogy of the so-called Mexican
wave..._
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ivor Catt
>> Sent: Jun 9, 2020 1:18 PM
>> To: "Prof. A Howie"
>> Cc: Ed Dellian , Steve Crothers , Brian
Josephson , Malcolm Davidson
>> , Anthony Davies , Alex Yakovlev , Forrest Bishop , John Raymond
>> Dore , michael.pepper@ucl.ac.uk, massimiliano.pieraccini@unifi.it
>> Subject: Re: question
>>
>> Professor Howie misrepresents "The Catt Question", which
was first
>> broached with him 40 years ago.
>> " I tried without success to convince Ivor Catt
>> that the many relatively slow moving electrons in a wire" -
Howie
>
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm It
is not about the current in
> the wire. It is about the charge on the surface of the bottom wire.
> Where does it come from?
> Pepper, who worked for Howie, head of the Cavendish at the time,
> said it could not come from the west, from the battery, because it
> would have to travel at the speed of light. He said it came
from the
> south, from inside the wire, contradicting Gauss's Law, as the
> Italians said. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf "Besides
some
> wrong explanations incompatible with Gauss’ Law, .... "
> Morgenthaler agrees with Pepper, and also defies Gauss's Law, as
> does the IEE/IET's Lago.
>
> George Orwell describes all of you ignoring this fatal flaw in
> classical electromagnetism as "protective stupidity".
> Crimestop_ means the faculty of stopping
short, as though by
> instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the
> power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical
> errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
> inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or
repelled by any train of
> thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
> _Crimestop_, in short, means protective stupidity._
> - G. Orwell, _1984_, pub. Chancellor, 1984 edn.,
p225
>
> Ivor Catt
>
> [1]
> Virus-free. www.avast.com [3] [1]
>
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 15:48, Prof. A Howie <ah30@cam.ac.uk>
wrote:
>
>> Dear Ed Dalian,
>>
>> Thank you for this prompt comment with which I agree. The
contact
>> force
>> and elastic interactions between the ball bearings in the cradle
>> generate a compressive wave which can indeed have a much higher
>> velocity
>> than the ball bearings themselves. The interaction in the
>> football
>> crowd and the origin of the correlation needed to produce the
>> Mexican
>> wave is obviously more mysterious and raises these dangerous
>> issues
>> about where the instructions are coming from. With charged
>> electrons
>> the connection to electrostatic forces and EM waves allows the
>> difference in the two velocities to be sustained.
>>
>> Archie Howie.
>>
>> On 2020-06-09 15:23, Ed Dellian wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Prof. Howie,
>>>
>>> as you refer to the so-called Mexican wave
I want to point to
>> the
>>
>>> example of "Newton's cradle" which seems to fit much
better. The
>>> experiment shows to the eye that "momentum mv" wanders
through
>> the
>>
>>> pendulum row at a "velocity" much higher than v.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Forrest Bishop
>> Sent: Jul 6, 2020 12:11 PM
>> To: Malcolm Davidson , Ed Dellian , Ivor
Catt , Forrest Bishop
>> Cc: Steve Crothers , Monika Vandory ,
Forrest Bishop , Alex Yakovlev
>> , Archie Howie , Anthony Davies , HARRY RICKER , John Raymond Dore ,
>> philip holland , "michael.pepper@ucl.ac.uk" ,
>> "ekkehard@ekkehard-friebe.de" , Phil
Reed
>> Subject: Re: The Heaviside Question
>>
>> Malcolm,
>>
>> I didn't see the Dellian reply of June 10.
I assume it is garbage
>> and comes with no method of physical verification, therefore a waste
>> of time.
>>
>> The question reminds me of a few of the problems with electric
>> current documented in 2012
>> here-
>> http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf
>>
>> The Catt Question [2, 3] has generated many conflicting responses
>> over the past thirty years. Some come up with novel theories of
>> electricity in the process—“these electrons
would have flowed in
>> along with the pulse” and “the charge causes the electrons to
>> flow” [4], or “the signal conductor… is the only conductor
>> that is being energized…. Current in the lower conductor is
>> created by an electromagnetic field emanating from the upper
>> conductor…” [5]. (Darney concludes his
exposition with “There
>> was certainly no need to invent a completely new theory.”)....
>>
>> The ‘Westerner’ view that electrons are supplied from the
>> battery does not solve the problem of electrons that have to move at
>> c. Each electron in the ‘compression’ wave (Fig. 2) still has to
>> move at c to participate in the new, transverse electric field. They
>> have to continue moving at c to account for the net line charge
>> moving at c. Once they pass through the load resistor, they have to
>> thin out somehow for the return journey to the ‘West’ on the
>> upper wire while moving backwards: still moving at c. How these
>> electrons are supposed to disconnect and reconnect to the transverse
>> electric field lines moving the other direction is an entirely new
>> question for the electric-current hypothesis. Is the wire neutral or
>> charged? The confusion on this point may be why there are two
>> principle schools of thought (along with several others) on The Catt
>> Question—the “Westerners”, who would have electrons coming
>> from the battery to the left; and the “Southerners”, who imply
>> the electrons rise up from within.
>>
>> [And other such problems document therein.]
>>
>> And more such problems documented in 2016
>>
> here-http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_paperlink_7395.pdf
>>
>>
>> 4.1. Electric Disconnection In all of the many published responses
>> to The Catt Question [14], not one of them has addressed the
>> problems that arise when the charge carriers move from the lower
>> wire, run through the load, and begin the trip back to the
source on
>> the upper wire. They have to thin out somehow, either by speeding up
>> as they pass though the load, switching their signs, or something.
>> The electrons would have to accelerate as they pass through, and
>> presumably deliver power to, the load....
>>
>> After a switch is opened on the signal wire, the speedier, yet
>> rarefied electrons that were moving Westward would have to stop and
>> pile up, starting at the open switch and propagating as a density
>> wave Eastward. The number of problems that people have been noticing
>> with the electric-current picture has been increasing exponentially
>> over the past few years, too many to keep track of. No one has shown
>> any mechanism by which the Eastward-moving TEM wave can generated a
>> Westward force on the returning charge carriers either.
>>
>> Is this where you got the idea for the Heaviside Question? Notice
>> the acceleration requirement
>>
>> Forrest
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Malcolm Davidson
>> Sent: Jul 6, 2020 9:46 AM
>> To: Ed Dellian , Ivor Catt
>> Cc: Steve Crothers , Monika Vandory ,
Forrest Bishop , Alex Yakovlev
>> , Archie Howie , Anthony Davies , HARRY RICKER , John Raymond Dore ,
>> philip holland , "michael.pepper@ucl.ac.uk" ,
>> "ekkehard@ekkehard-friebe.de" , Phil
Reed
>> Subject: Re: The Heaviside Question
>>
>> Ed,
>>
>> Ivor had nothing to do with the Heaviside question. You did not
>> give the correct answer regarding the conventional theories. I asked
>> the question "_What is the force pushing the electrons back
towards
>> the source on the upper conductor_"
>>
>> I did not ask "Is there a force?" All students are taught
that
>> there is a flow of electrons in a loop when a step flows down a
>> cable. I asked the question merely to highlight the absurd nature of
>> the theories that we were and are taught.
>>
>> Malcolm
>>
>> -------------------------
>>
>> From: Ed Dellian <ed.dellian@t-online.de>
>> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:43 AM
>> To: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Malcolm Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com>;
Steve Crothers
>> <sjc7541@gmail.com>; Monika Vandory <vandory@gmx.net>;
Forrest
>> Bishop <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>; Alex Yakovlev
>> <Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk>; Archie
Howie <ah30@cam.ac.uk>;
>> Anthony Davies <tonydavies@ieee.org>;
HARRY RICKER
>> <kc3mx@yahoo.com>; John Raymond Dore <johnrdore@gmail.com>;
philip
>> holland <holland.philip@yahoo.co.uk>; michael.pepper@ucl.ac.uk
>> <michael.pepper@ucl.ac.uk>; ekkehard@ekkehard-friebe.de
>> <ekkehard@ekkehard-friebe.de>; Phil Reed
<phil@philreed.tv>
>> Subject: Re: The Heaviside Question
>>
>> Once again Ivor Catt immediately rejects my friendly proposal,
>> brazenly denying his evident legal responsibility for the General
>> Offer which was released by him, which asked for answers to be sent
>> to him (his personal email address, in the meantime tellingly
>> removed from the website), and to which offer nobody else but he
>> drew my attention with email of 10 June 2020, 9:05.
>>
>> Extraordinary, indeed. And, how embarrassing. A person who sold his
>> reputation as a scientist and as a man in order to save some money.
>> Shame on him.
>>
>> E. D.
>>
>> Am 06.07.2020 um 17:22 schrieb Ivor Catt:
>> Extraordinary.
>> Not my “Heaviside Question. Ed , go to the man who asked it.
>> Ivor Catt.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 6 Jul 2020, at 11:13, Ed Dellian <ed.dellian@t-online.de>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Gentlemen,
>>
>> the Open Contest "The Heaviside Question" ended when I on
10 June
>> anwered the question correctly, as the first
and only one. However,
>> Ivor Catt, being named on the relevant website as responsible, his
>> personal email address asking for replies, explicitly refuses to
>> draw the inevitable consequences. First he
fooled my by asserting he
>> had nothing to do with the Open Contest. Then he changed his tactic,
>> now denying that my answer would be correct. Implicitly he said, ha
>> ha ha, we've put a tricky question that
cannot be answered at all!
>> Ha ha ha. No
comment.
>>
>> On 26 June I wrote the following email to Ivor Catt:
>>
>> "Dear Ivor,
>>
>> much to my regret you're trying to cheat me, resorting to semantics,
>> and shifting the responsibility to others. You're actually putting
>> your whole reputation at risk, as a scientist, and as a man of his
>> word. What a pity; what a shame.
>>
>> 1. Nobody else but you, and only you, with email of 10 June, 09:05,
>> made me aware of the open Contest "The Heaviside
Question", where
>> you (together with Malcolm Davidson and Stephen Crothers) publicly
>> tender an award of $ 5,000 to
him who would correctly answer a
>> question. I did it.
>>
>> 2. the internals you tell me now mean nothing to me. I don't know
>> what "Harry Ricker" and "Monica Vandory
of Salzburg" have to do with
>> our case.
>>
>> 3. Even though "of course" I have won the contest, I
didn't think to
>> ask you for money first. Rather I believed you would offer it, and
>> then I would have refused to accept. But as you are trying to cheat
>> me, things change.
>>
>> I propose you first explicitly admit that my answer to the Contest
>> is correct and fulfils the conditions.
>>
>> Then Malcolm Davidson and Stephen Crothers may decide what to do
>> with the price money."
>>
>> On 26 June Ivor Catt rejected my proposal, writing among others:
>> So you are asking me to give you $5,000 for something I knew nothing
>> about until recently.
>> I am willing to interfere to the extent of saying your
"answer" is
>> not an answer. Ivor Catt".
>>
>> Herewith I repeat the rejected proposal, but with a time limit: 8
>> June, 12 h (Berlin time).
>>
>> If he let pass that deadline, Ivor Catt will be suffering the
>> consequences of his actions.
>>
>> Ed Dellian, Berlin, Germany.
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.naturalphilosophy.org//pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf
> [2]
> https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
> [3] http://www.avast.com/
|
|
ReplyReply to allForward
|
|
|
|