|
|
Note 1 on Others on Ivor Catt in Wikipedia by Ivor Catt, 31 August 2007 |
| See below; "The Question starts." (see The Catt Anomaly) Then he (whoever he is) says; " Two paragraphs before this, Catt presents a paraphrase of the question .... " "The Question Starts" was where the question started, as it was presented to Pepper and McEwan in 1993 and 1995. They knew nothing about Catt, and only had access to "The Question". The book about their replies was published in 1996. It discussed the contradiction between their answers. The 1996 book preceded "The Question" with discussion "When a battery is connected to a resistor .... ". When answering (under instruction from their bosses), Pepper and McEwan could not have seen the content of a book published to discuss their answers. The material sent to them by a third party (their bosses, who selected them as their best experts,) was carefully restricted to the definitive statement of "The Catt Question", which is always as follows; @@@@@@@@@@@@@ [The 1996 book states; "The standard version of the Catt Anomaly, as presented to Pepper and McEwan and the IEE, is on page 3." Page 3 follows immediately.] The Question - electric current in the conductors - magnetic field, or flux, surrounding the conductors - electric charge on the surface of the conductors - electric field, or flux, in the vacuum terminating on the charge. The key to grasping the anomaly is to concentrate on the electric charge on the bottom conductor. During the next 1 nanosecond, the step advances one foot to the right. During this time, extra negative charge appears on the surface of the bottom conductor in the next one foot length, to terminate the lines (tubes) of electric flux which now exist between the top (signal) conductor and the bottom conductor. Where does this new charge come from? Not from
the upper conductor, because by definition, displacement current is
not the flow of real charge. Not from somewhere to the left, because
such charge would have to travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.
(This last sentence is what those "disciplined in the art"
cannot grasp, although paradoxically it is obvious to the untutored
mind.) A central feature of conventional theory is that the drift
velocity of electric current is slower than the speed of light. @@@@@@@@@@@@ My research into "The Scientific Reception System" has been conducted rigorously. "The Catt Question" has always been stated exactly the same, for 25 years. It is on p3 of the book published to discuss their replies to The Question. the book
The following was copied from Wikipedia on 31 August 2007
[edit] The Catt Question, yet again The Question starts .... when a TEM step .... When a battery is connected to a resistor .... The upshot of this is that whereas Catt thinks that the two versions of his question have the same meaning, they are entirely distinct questions when read by a physicist who applies the consensual meanings of the terminology. Once you realise that there is a serious ambiguity in Catt's Question, it is perfectly clear that Prof Pepper (who was unaware of Catt's non-standard position) was trying to answer ".... when a TEM step ....", while Dr McEwen (undoubtedly a Wireless World reader) was answering "When a battery is connected to a resistor ....". This is not a problem with the physics, but rather with Catt's Question. See Minor_characters_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Majikthise_and_Vroomfondel Vroomfondel and Forty-two. -- Kevin Brunt 20:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Kevin, Catt asks "where does the charge come from?" If
those experts did not understand what this question means, they could
have asked for confirmation from Catt. Neither did so. Hence they
were both confused by the question, which resulted in their differing
answers to it. Your claim that the answers were not in conflict because
the answers were answers to different interpretations of the question
"where does the charge come from?" is really in self-contradiction.
If two kids are asked what is 2 + 2, and one gives the answer 3 while
the other gives the answer 6, it might well be the case that they
both misunderstood the question (poor hearing, frequency distortion,
causes misunderstandings). But that doesn't disprove the fact that
the answers are different, and if you have different answers, then
the answers are in disagreement, regardless of the cause. You seem
to be assuming that because the experts possibly didn't understand
the simple written question, their differing answers are not evidence
of a conflict. However, the answers are in conflict, regardless of
the underlying cause behind the differences of opinion they express
concerning where the charge comes from. The fact remains, the responses
are different by 90 degrees. That's a contradiction, whatever is the
cause. The experts are in perfect agreement about where the charge comes from - it is already in the conductor. It has been known since the start of the 20th Century that an "uncharged" mass actually contains vast (but equal) quantities of positive and negative charge, in the form of sub-atomic particles, and that the phenomenon of "charge" in the 19th Century sense is a statistical statement about the displacement of the particles from their equilibrium state. In the absence of any additional context, Catt's Question appears to be about an electromagentic wave impinging on a conductor, which is quite clearly what Pepper's answer is about. McEwen, on the other hand, has not tried to answer the Question (and it is perfectly clear from what he wrote that it was not his intention to answer the Question.) Instead, (being very obviously aware of Catt's theories) McEwen has set out to explain how the "mainstream" consensus can accommodate the idea of near-light-speed propagation of a wavefront in a conductor with the millimetre-per-second drift velocity of the electron mass. Your "2 + 2" example is not helpful, or representative. A better one might be "What is the difference between an Apricot and a Tangerine?" which has different answers depending on whether you are referring to fruit or to obsolete British microcomputers. RE: energy current... Let's start by noting that you mentioned the electron first. It is the discovery of the electron in 1897 and the evolution of the Drude model of conduction (and its quantum mechanical successors) that solves the dicotomy between "charge current" and "energy current". Catt's theories derive from Heaviside's 1888 publication (ie before the electron!) and it is clear that Catt does not really want to extend his theorising. Note particularly that Catt's Question only tangentially approaches the concept of the electron with the mention of the "drift velocity of the electric current". I hold by my statement as to Catt's position, for which see The Death of Electric Current. Catt distinguished between "Theory N" - flow of charge + flow of energy (no attempt to explain why); "Theory H" (Heaviside) flow of charge + flow of energy (defined by Poynting Vector E x H) and "Theory C" (Catt) flow of energy. Theories N, H and C appeared originally in Digital Hardware Design Chapter 10 and it is clear exactly where Catt's theories diverge from Heaviside's conception. At the bottom of page 65 (first page of the chapter) appears the quote from Heaviside that ends "We reverse this....." Now what Heaviside is reversing is not, as the following text would suggest, Theory N, but rather a suggestion by Maxwell that the flow of energy is the sum of the energies held in the electric and magnetic fields as they are carried through the conductor by the flow of charge. Maxwell is thus suggesting that there is no flow of energy distinct from the flow of charge. Heaviside's "reversal" is a repudiation of Maxwell's suggestion. Heaviside requires both a flow of energy and a flow of charge. By invoking the Poynting Vector Heaviside automatically gets the magnitude of the flow of energy to be related to the vector product of the electric and magnetic fields, and thus proportional to the product of the voltage and current (which Maxwell's sum of energies simply cannot be made to do.) When you look at Catt's detailed working of his theory, in Electromagnetism 1, chapter 1, you see that his energy current, like Maxwell's, is the sum of the separate energies held in the electric and magnetic fields. Catt's conception is the counterpart of Maxwell's; where Maxwell's energy flow is "in phase" with the current, Catt's energy flow is in phase with the voltage. Catt's version has the same problems as Maxwell's, and Heaviside would have dismissed as comprehensively. -- Kevin Brunt 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
|
|
|
. |
|