Talk:Ivor Catt/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Diagram of setup

x = electronic switch

          _____________________________
         /x                            |
        / x                            |
       /  x                            |       
      /   x direction of incident waves| 
     /    x    <------------>    |
    /     x                            |
GEN/   <-- matching sect               |
   \      x                            | 
    \     x                            |
     \    x                            |
      \   x                            |
       \  x                            |
        \ x                            |
         \x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x|
          \             ^             /
           \            |            /
            \      dir of o/p       /
             \     waves|          /
              \         |         /
               \                 /
                \   Matching    /
                 \  section    /
                  \     |     /
                   \    |    /
                    \  \ /  /
                     \     /
                      \   /
                       \ /
                    LOAD & 
                    DETECTOR

Well no I dont think so becuase the switches (x) in the bottom row are all open. So how can there be diffraction? Or are you talking about when the bottom row of sitches are closed?--Light current 17:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

So does the diffraction cause the direction of propagating to change thro 90 degrees?--Light current 18:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I think so. I'm not sure; I'd have to simulate it. But most simulation software would treat the "wave" as DC, so I'm not sure how you would do that. Pfalstad 20:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

OK Good Luck!

No, what I'm saying is that I'm not going to try, because I don't understand your theory well enough. This is why we need a mathematical presentation of it. If you could do that, I could simulate it. But part of the problem with your theory is that there are "hidden variables" which you haven't elaborated on yet. Like, consider the TL with counter-propagating waves in it. It is identical to a TL with DC. Normally, I would say that if you know the E and M field at all points in and around a TL, that is enough to describe its current and future state. But it seems that with your counter-propagating wave theory, that is no longer true; there may be waves hidden in the TL, and just looking at the fields doesn't tell you if they are present or not, right? So there must be some additional field or state present at all points in space which tells you about the counter-propagating waves that are present. This needs to be developed mathematically or I haven't any hope of simulating it. Pfalstad 03:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well the problem with the mathematical theory is, as AC has shown, that if you analyse the situation after the input pulse is finished, you get a dc voltage, but no current on the plates because those are the contraints (boundary conditions) you are putting on the equations. As I said before, I dont think there's any way of really telling the difference without disturbing the waves. So it would have to be tried in hardware.

Now the problem is, if the actual expt showed no delay in the pulse coming out, would that show there was only dc on the plates or would it show that there were already existing counter-propagting waves in the orthogonal direction too!?

Again, I think that we are well into the area of philosophy here, but if theres no way to tell the difference, in my book, then there is no difference. So, in short, I dont think the theory can be proved or disproved. All we know is that waves enter, and when a load is connected again, waves come out. What happens in between cannot be known for certain. I think it can be thought of either way-- which really is what Ive been trying to show.;-)--Light current 04:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Poynting Vector = Energy Current

This is pretty standard stuff, in all the textbooks I think. Pfalstad 18:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes probably but its an unfamiliar concept to some people and Catt has embraced it at the the expense on ordinary (charge) current. That why I included it.--Light current 21:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversial

A lot of this stuff doesn't seem controversial at all. Maybe just mistated? For instance,

"He also quoted as reasoning that any charge caused by such displacement current in a capacitor would need to appear at all points on the capacitor plates instantaneously and therefore needs to travel at superluminal velocities from the leads to the extremities of the plates."

This is obviously true, not controversial. All components can be modeled as transmission lines, but it's usually not important to be that detailed, and just treat them as if the charges travel instantaneously. They can be modeled in an even more detailed way than the transmission line model, too, if desired.

I don't really like the tone of the article. Stuff like the public arguments section needs references. — Omegatron 15:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the article doesn't do a good job of identifying which ideas are controversial and why. See my poynting vector = energy current comment above. Pfalstad 20:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it getting controversial enough now? Have you seen this before?

The <s!>five </s!> six stages of theory acceptance:

a) Its not true, it cant be true

b) It might be true, but it has no importance.

c) It is true, but has no real meaning

d) It is true and maybe its important

e) I thought of it first

f) Its not controvertial at all - it obvious! --Light current 20:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Copper = infinite dielectric

I'm sure I've read in other (mainstream) books that a conductor acts like an infinite dielectric. Sometimes the math works that way. Of course, I can't imagine how you could model an infinite dielectric at the molecular level, other than as a conductor. If a material is infinitely polarizable, that means the (net) charges can move anywhere, so it's a conductor. Does Catt deal with solid state physics at all? I don't see how he could, with all these wild ideas. And how does he deal with resistance? Pfalstad 03:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Resistance arises as normal due to electric current, not necessarily Heaviside energy current. Dr Walton first tested Catt's conjucture that two similar electromagnetic signals, sent in opposite directions along the same transmission line, would not have any resistance for the duration of their overlap. The measurements of Walton were published in Wireless World letters, 1981, and in Catt's book Death of Electric Current.

While they overlap, there is no voltage variation along that part of the transmission line. This means that there is no conduction current and Heaviside energy flows with no resistance!

This is only because there is no resultant current at that point, hence no H field hence ExH =0, hence no energy. There is still resistance tho'!--Light current 18:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

We know this anyway because when you connect an open-ended transmission line to battery, it charges up at light speed without heating up, because the energy flows out, reflects at the end, and returns to the battery. All that happens is that the energy current charges up the cable like a capacitor, and there is no heating once it is fully charged because the energy flowing outward along the wires equals that returning, so the voltage is constant and there is no electron drift current and no resistance.

This is why Catt argued back in the 1960s to get away from multiconductor cables, like the old parallel printer cables with many pins, and use just a single transmission line for information travelling both ways. Not only does it avert cross-talk, it also saves some electricity in long cables if signals are sent both ways at the same time, because there is no resistance while the signals overlap. (Of course, if you try explaining this simple stuff to most people they have so little contact with reality that they think electric pulses sent in opposite directions down the same cable will collide and either cancel out or rebound!)

There is resistance. Its just that the algebraic sum of the currents in duplex transmission may equal zero. So no current= no energy loss! Also, the concept of rebounding is also a valid one as is the concept of signals passing through one another. So, equal lkevel pulses sent in opposite directions dowm a TL can be considered either to rebopund off each other, or to pass through each other. The result is the same!.--Light current 18:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The only motions involved is the electromagnetic radiation which gives rise to Coulomb's law (gauge bosons of electromagnetism), electron spin, and electron motion (typically 1% of the speed of light).

It is very hard to know which pieces of experimental proof should be used to convince people of the correctness of Catt's basic work. Really, the facts should be presented in a way lucid to children, because electricity is a fundamental scientific application.

I like the idea of pulses being sent down lines and reflecting etc. Most of Catts work can be explained this way. Its simple to understand and intuitive. No maths required, (esp no vector calculus!)--Light current 18:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Catt's biggest mistake is trying to present the facts in the standard mathematical way, which of course is just what everybody avoids reading. Unless you can first convince someone of the basic correctness of the physical concepts involved in a simple way, they will not read the mathematics. Once they accept the evidence, they are generally no help because they are in the same or worse position as Catt, with nobody listening. Eventually after enough disasters due to EMC, the cover-ups may be discovered by the deceased, and action taken. You always have to have a lot of deaths before any innovation will be taken seriously, that's traditional.

By Catt supporter?

Recent addition of large amount of new material by 172.216.12.45

I believe these additions have been made by a reputable and knowledgable contributor on this subject by the name of Mr Nigel Cook. Who may shortly be getting his own page!!--Light current 03:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

In now have some doubt as to the originator of these posts from URL 172.216.12.45.--Light current 04:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

God forbid that he should get his own page on Wikipedia.

Why not? --Light current 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

"... the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly..." - http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince06.htm

If you look at Catt's experiences in life, you see that it is a very soul destroying activity to be an innovator. He is continually fighting battles with only lukewarm support!

I think he will get more support when his ideas are properly understood. This page on him is probably the biggest break he has ever had! However, this page will not be a propaganda page for Catts ideas but will be neutrally written piece with no points of view expressed one way or the other. It is up to the readers to decide o for themselves the validity of Catts arguments--Light current 18:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

ATC stuff

That whole section seemed full of irrelevant details and innuendo. If you want to talk about Catt's ATC proposal, the need for it, and the "suppression" of it, be my guest. But stick to the facts. But leading with some story about an ATC disaster (taking for granted that it wouldn't have happened if people had listened to Catt) seems very POV. And what does that email have to do with anything? Pfalstad 19:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe this was added by Nigel Cook and probably needs some POV removals. However, it will take some intensive reseasrch to establish the unbiased story I feel.--Light current 20:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Images of Catt

Pfalstad and Light current, is there any way to get a photo of Catt on the site, say the small Electronics World http://www.ivorcatt.com/illus/ivor_anam.jpg (which is openly published and is can be used under fair-trading copyright law provided credit is given Electronics World magazine) which shows Catt with the "product of the year award" from a magazine for his 1988 160 MB spiral WSI product?

Yes. Just upload the image giving it a suitable name and fill in the copyright details (use the upload file tab and follow instructions). Then the image can be put into the article. Picture credits are not normally included on the article pages though!--Light current 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

EMC

What is it? Pfalstad 19:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

ElectroMagnetic Compatability for electronic equipment.

Nigel Cooks view

It appears that Nigel cook uses the term displacement current to describe what we all know and love as em energy! Extract form his page:

Charge is not conserved which is why the fifth Maxwell equation was dropped when charge creation from gamma rays exceeding the energy equivalent of two electrons was discovered in 1932. The abuse from ignorant crackpots is well documented. Catt himself refuses to concentrate on the facts. The ‘displacement current’ is radio wave energy. The entire electromagnetic theory of Maxwell’s light/radio is false.

my bolding.

This terminology usage does not help anyone in sorting out the real truth an Im sure Ivor Catt did not confuse the two terms displacement current and em energy --Light current 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Light Current: please note the difference in directions! The "displacement current" (for want of a better word, perhaps "radio current" is best) goes at a 90 degree angle to the em energy of the traditional TEM wave or Heaviside slab. It goes parallel to the electric field lines, and in the direction from one charge to another. The Heaviside energy current always goes parallel to the conductors! So it would be confusing if cook used em energy for both??!

I have noted the differing directions. I personally do not believe in anything flowing from one plate to another. I believe em energy flows parallel to the plates and this is the direction of the energy current.--Light current 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Catt only deals with the Heaviside slab of energy current. Heaviside thought em energy was just guided by two conductors, according to Catt. This means that Catt ignores the situation of one capacitor plate receiving the TEM wave energy first, such as then you but a capacitor in a circuit: ____||______ The first capacitor plate charges up, and energy flows across the gap to induce a charge on the second plate!

Well I have my own theory about this and its not the same as you describe, but I feel it inappropriate to discuss it here as we are trying to write an article on Catt and only on Catt!--Light current 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Notice that there is a time delay involved here, and transverse motion of energy. This is completely ignored by Catt, who simply ignores such situations and omits them from his books as if they don't exist. Since this page is not a propaganda forum for Catt, should it be pointed out here that Heaviside's slab of energy current led Heaviside to make his biggest blunder?

The only time delay in a capacitor charging with energy current is the time it takes to do the round trip along the capacitors TL--Light current 20:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Heaviside was asked about the possibility of a wave guide, which is used now to guide microwaves from the emitter to the antenna without loss. It is just a metallic box of suitable dimensions for the wavelength being used. Heaviside thought a wave guide is just a parallel-plate transmission line with sides added, creating a short circuit! Because he "knew" that two conductors only guide TEM wave energy between then if they are not short circuited, Heaviside was certain that wave guides were nonsense.

I believe wave guides operate differently from TLs. Heaviside obviously knew as little about them as I do--Light current 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It was his biggest blunder, and it disproves the dogma of the TEM wave. The TEM wave can be a useful concept, but the physical dynamics of where the energy is going and how the energy delivered in the wires comes at the speed of the insulator between them, is covered up.

I don't understand this para.--Light current 20:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Catt's position seems to be that he is unprepared to go into the dynamics behind the TEM wave, and will only deal with problems which Heaviside's "energy current" can be applied to. This means that he cannot deal with radio, which is a capacitor problem where the plates are separated by a significant distance in comparison to their length, and one charges before the other. From this perspective, the nature of a radio wave is an energy flow in the direction of the "displacement current" and the equation for that is describing radio. This is not the original Maxwell theory, which is wrong since it has displacement current at a 90 degree angle to radio propagation direction.

I have asked before for you to justify your claims of radio via capacitance. i.e. what is the value of capacitance, over 500mi, what is the loss etc. No reply!--Light current 20:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

We must assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the above material under hdg Nigel Cooks view and indented by one tab stop, is the work of Mr Nigel Cook. It certainly looks like his style!.--Light current 20:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Light current: The capacitance is not going to be very big if the two conductors are miles apart! It could be calculated, but it would have to be time-dependent due to the distance. I don't see why you would need the precise value anyway for practical situations of radio. The mechanism is still of interest. The key thing is that there is a transmission of energy from one capacitor plate to the other, for conservation of energy in the circuit. The energy can't disappear from one plate and magically reappear in the other without traversing the gap.

Why not calculate the approximate capacitance then and work out the loss (in dB) to see if it makes any sense at all as a theory? I suggest the mechanism would be completely impractical but you could prove me wrong!--Light current 09:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

My v. quick calc shows that, with plates 1 sq m spaced at 100km the capacitance is 8.854 E-19 F. Assuming an angular freq of 100Mr/s, this gives a reactance of 1E10 ohms. Now assume 1k source and load impedances (quite high I would think for radio). This gives an attn of approx 1E-7. In dBV this is 140dB. Thatis ther is 140dB voltage loss between transmitter and reciever. Are you seriously expecting people to believe that ridiculous figure?

Correct. It is transmitted as em energy!--Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If it does flow across the gap, as it must, it is behaving like radio waves between two parallel aerials.

Radio wave yes. displacement current , no--Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Catt will only deal with what happens if you connect a pair of wires to a pair of battery terminals at the same time. This is the Heaviside slab of energy current, and he can do an awful lot with it, for which deserves full credit.

What catt will do is what we are writing about.--Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that this approach to electromagnetism cannot deal with the situation where one conductor is connected to a potential and the other is passive. This is the case where you have a TEM wave or Heaviside slab of energy encountering the first capacitor plate in a capacitor, before anything can reach the second plate.

Not our problem on WP!--Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It is the ideal time to identify sort out problems. If this is not done, it will prevent Catt's work being generalised. It is only a modification to Catt's calculations to include the effects of radio transmission between conductors such as capacitor plates, although there are various corrections for time lags, dispersion of radiated energy, etc.

We are not a propaganda machine for you or Catt or anyone!--Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

At present the major problem in preventing Catt's work from being accepted widely is that he does not make it clear where it applies and where it doesn't. I think his advances are massive enough to stand on their own two feet without being propped up by vague and misleading assertions that they replace everything. If you use Catt's stepwise charging curve to derive the correct equation for "displacement current" (really the current associated with radio emission from a charging capacitor plate to the other one), you get a grip on the mathematical change that allows you to all kinds of things, such as the idea that quantum theory arises from energy going into an atom which is effectively a type of charged capacitor (electron and proton, charges). The stepwise charging can be related to the energy levels of an electron.

No comment. I have my own views but Im not going to air them here.--Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The suppression of Catt has prevented good peer-review. His most important ideas have been banned from scientific discussion. If some things are exaggerated and others are not followed up far enough, it is not his fault. But readers should benefit from pointing out these things. It will make the subject more rigorous and useful, and less crazy looking to readers!

I have some sympathy for Catt., but WP is not a shoulder to cry on!--Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

(See also recent response in the "Displacement Current" section above, about the row between Professor D.A. Bell and Catt in Wireless World. Bell claimed "displacement current" is vital in Maxwell's mathematical theory of radio waves, validated by Hertz. This eventually led to Catt being suppressed from Wireless World for a decade, after many heated letters-column exchanges. Catt states that he reported Bell for misconduct, but the IEE came down on Bell's side.

It would more accurate, based on what Catt says on his own websites, to say that Bell put forward the standard definition of a transverse electromagnetic wave in which the "displacement current" term in the Ampere-Maxwell equation plays a vital role. Catt wanted to quote Bell's writing in a book. Bell refused permission; not unreasonably, given that Catt is a dab hand at out-of-context quotes. Catt complained to the IEE. This looks far more like spite than anything else. -- Kevin Brunt 22:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

This is all down to Tom Ivall, editor of Wireless World, not promoting Catt's discovery for what is really was - the correction of the formula for the mythical "displacement current" but instead vaguely just claiming that Catt's paper disproved any such thing. Don't repeat this mistake here on Wikipedia. Ivall's error had the tragic consequence of allowing Catt to be suppressed and ridiculed since 1978.)

Noted. But this is your POV--Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC) We will aim to give a fair and just representation of the facts as the consensus of editors see them.--Light current 03:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not anybody's "point of view", it is a fact. The statement in the article as it stands is totally false: "he claims that Maxwell's displacement current term is not in fact needed to explain capacitor operation because displacement current is not needed in a transmission line." (See the long bitter rows this "innocent" claim has created, and the stagnation of electromagnetism as a result: [1])