Tombe again

 

This, below the “@@@”s, is so silly.

David Tombe confirms that he thinks E and H are in a different phase relationship in a transmission line from the relationship for waves in space. Below he cites SHM, a weight on a spring. Now the stretching in the spring results in a force which accelerates the weight. The inertia of the weight causes the stretching of the spring. Of course, this is the “Rolling Wave”, where E causes H, H causes E. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2604.htm . Thus, David’s “intuition” tells him that E and H are out of phase. But the fact is that they are in phase, which I call “The Heaviside Signal”. I sent him a college or some such tutorial on the www which said this. I have now sent him his hero Maxwell also saying E and H are in phase in light.

 

Professors and text book writers, and also Einstein and Feynman http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0102em.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/8cg.htm , are able to teach the false story, that E causes H causes E, because they are uncertain about the relative phase of E and H. (No text book in the 20th century stated the relative phase of E and H.) Tombe realises that if they are in phase, that destroys “The Rolling Wave”. (He has a weird way of saying it; “We're agreed that in a DC transmission line pulse, that E and H are in phase.”) However, Tombe admits that in a transmission line, they are in phase – but Feynman and Einstein have never considered anything except a sine wave travelling down a transmission line, and know nothing about the pulse. So to save “The Rolling Wave”, which is saved for Einstein because he is uncertain about the relative phase of E and H, Tombe has to say the signal in a transmission line is totally different from waves in space.

 

Ivor Catt              17jan14

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

David Tombe

Jan 16 2016

 

Maxwell and the phase of E and H

Dear Ivor,
                  We're agreed that in a DC transmission line pulse, that E and H are in phase. As regards wireless EM radiation, I have intuitively concluded that E and H will be 90 degrees out of phase, irrespective of what is implied by any diagrams that maxwell may have drawn. I base my reasoning as follows. In a simple harmonic motion of a mechanical spring, the kinetic energy and the potential energy are out of phase by 90 degrees. The force is in phase with the potential energy. In EM, I see E as a force whereas I see H as a rotational kinetic energy. Hence I would say that E and H are out of phase by 90 degrees in a wireless EM wave.
 
                I would say that the DC transmission line pulse is like a bar magnet sliding along between two wires and bringing its magnetic field with it. However, as soon as the current becomes alternating, any changes in the H field will lag behind the changes in the E field by 90 degrees.
 
                                        Best Regards
                                               David Tombe

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

Dear Franklin Hu,

You were of opinion that if I had not satisfactory comment on the “Fuel Cell”, my idea that electric current did not exist is refuted.

I replied that “Theory C” did not say there was no electricity. It is very tightly defined; “If a battery is connected to a lamp by two wires and the lamp lights, electric current is not involved.”

Theory C is useful in that it resolves the anomaly presented by “The Catt Question”. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm .It also caters for The Second Catt Question http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf .

As to the existence of electric current and electric charge, that is another matter. However, if it is accepted that the primary role of electric current is to help a battery to light a lamp, then “The Catt Question” and “Theory C” put it in difficulty. However, as you point out, electricity appears in other roles, for instance your “fuel cell”. At that pint we have to be told what electric charge and electric current are. I attempt to construct an electron out of TEM Waves, and I am not alone. Take for instance Professor Jennison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Clifton_Jennison .

I now see that your fuel cell is in the class of “battery”. Some decades ago I said we needed to be told what came out of a battery in the first few nanoseconds after it is switched on. When I talked to battery men, I found that for them, 1 millisecond was a long time. If we don’t know how a battery behaves in the first few nanoseconds, we cannot develop theory. I have recommended experiments, http://www.ivorcatt.com/585.htm , which are easy to do. I suspect that nobody in the world will bother to do these simple experiments (for a few decades from now) to find out what comes out of a battery in the first few nanoseconds. (Whoever did the experiments would be prevented from publishing his results by Peer Review anyway.) After we find out what comes out initially, we can begin to develop theory as to why. At present we lack the primary information.

 

http://www.ivorcatt.com/2_4.htm

It is then obvious that the battery plates are a western extension of the transmission line comprising the two conductors linking battery to switches 1,2. On closure of switches 1,2, it is this eastwards travelling energy current which rushes forwards, retaining its velocity. There is no change in velocity when the switches are closed. Ions in the battery liquid are not involved, and in any case they travel in the wrong direction, towards the south and north. Chemical reaction in the battery electrolyte replenishes the reciprocating energy current. It is not known whether this energy current is concentrated in the thin interfaces between battery plate and electrolyte, or is broadly spread throughout the electrolyte, or some in each region[2].

 

I think you toy with the idea that when energy travels down a transmission line (towards a lamp), the electric current and charge in the wires is primary. This leads to the question; do you accept the mainstream theory, that the amount of power delivered relates to the E and H fields between the wires? Question 2 is; “Is the energy travelling down fibre optic cable essentially the same, where conductors are not involved?”. Question 3 is, “Is the energy delivered to you from the sun essentially the same? Why are no wires involved? Or are you personally wired up to the sun so as to keep warm?”

 

Ivor Catt   18 January 2014

 

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2014 9:59 AM

To: Franklin Hu ; PAL Asija

Cc: Robert.bennett@rcn.com ; sungenis@aol.com ; OUR PAL ; relativity googlegroups.com ; David Tombe

Subject: Re: Does current flow as a stream of electrons in a wire - fuel cell case

 

Now the question of how a lamp actually lights up is an interesting one. You seem to think that the battery is somehow delivering its energy through waves traveling back/forth at the speed of light. Is that right?

 

The above is “Theory H”, propounded by Oliver Heaviside and then suppressed. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x41h.pdf . He was sending Morse pulses undersea from Newcastle to Denmark, and saw that the energy travelled in the dielectric guided by the conductors. He was suppressed, unmentioned in any text book for more than half a century. My work, 70 years later, sending high speed digital signals ion a computer, was a return to Heaviside’s situaiton after a hiatus of wireless theory for half a century.

 

It is not disputed (except perhaps by you) that the energy from battery to lamp is ExH in the dielectric, travelling at the speed of light. It owuld be helpful if you said whether you disagreed with this statement, which is mainstream electromagnetic theory.

 

Ivor Catt