What is your EM crankosity?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Szczepan Białek on 24 Sep 2009 03:58 "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote news:7hvbgtF2vr29rU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > Anyone that has ever worked with radio waves for any period of time knows > that an (electrically) short piece of open circuit transmission line acts > like a capacitor. > And next: > First, the voltage across a capacitor in an RC network can *never* exceed > the supply voltage. In end of antennas the "supply voltage" (the peak value) is doubled. For this reason the end radiates very strong electric field (in pulses of course). This pules are the radio waves. EM is useless here. It is only the piece to teach match. S*
From: John Kennaugh on 23 Sep 2009 21:20 =?iso-8859-2?Q?Szczepan_Bia=B3ek?= wrote: > >"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote >news:Uw7TWEEEreuKFwir(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... >> Benj wrote: >>>Are you a Maxwell loon? >> >> no. >> >>>How well do you understand Maxwell's equations? >> >> I don't but I know a man who does. Ivor Catt has made a major >>contribution in making computers work faster by studying how EM >>energy actually moves. He found that standard EM theory wasn't very >>useful. In his critical study of Maxwell's equations he points out >>that the accepted idea that the change of H field *causes* the change >>in E field and vice versa is pure fabrication. Nothing in the >>equations can justify that assumption. In fact Catt concludes that >>the only information contained in the equations is the speed c and >>that at every point E and H are in fixed proportion Zo = 377 ohms. >>Catt claims that this simple fact is not mentioned in any physics text. >> >> http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm >> >> Since physics has disowned the aether concept it was in danger of >>destroying its own foundations. To compensate it has tried to elevate >>the status of Maxwell's equations far beyond what is warranted and to >>imply that these are a worthy foundation on which to build a century >>of physics. >> >> Maxwell's equations are simply a re-arrangement of relationships >>worked out by Faraday in respect of charge and only verified at low >>speed. Maxwell discovered that the relationships could be arranged in >>a form which mirrored the mathematical description of a fluid. > >The fluid is a good analogy. But there are many possibilities. Maxwell >choose the whirls (vortices). >But in the fluid the two ships attract when travel in the same >direction. We do not need magnetism whirls. For Ampere magnetism was >an illusion. >Can anybody say for what reason the cuurent produce the magnetic whirl. >Current produce strains and streses. > >>Now waves can propagate in a fluid and when Maxwell calculated, from >>Faraday's constants at what speed "EM waves" might be expected to >>travel he found that it was at the speed of light and concluded that >>light waves were EM waves. > >But in fluid are also pressure waves. We do not need the transversal >waves. No such in reality. >> >> Note that although the equations are described as "wave equations" >>Catt concludes that they do not have a solution which gives >>undulations. What they describe is that the circumstances exist where >>waves might exist. In other words they describe not waves but a >>'medium' in which waves might propagate. > >He describes the solid ether with the transverse waves. Do not usefull >at all. > >> A century of physics is actually based on the belief that Maxwell had >>put the aether on a sound mathematical footing. Having disowned the >>aether that century of physics is supported by the myth that >>Maxwell's equations have some mystical significance transcending both >>their humble origins (Faraday) and their previously assumed physical >>interpretation (the aether). > >Todays "Maxwell's equations " were written by Heaviside. I think that today's Maxwell's Equations are thanks to Lorentz who considerably developed Maxwell's original. More properly it should be referred to as Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics. >> >>>Ten easy questions to measure your kookosity: >>> >>>1. An electromagnetic plane wave in free vacuum consists of a >>>sinusoidal electric >>>field and a sinusoidal magnetic field at right angles to it. These >>>fields are delayed >>>90 degrees from one another such that energy oscillates between them >>>in a >>>manner similar to an LRC circuit where the energy oscillates back and >>>forth >>>between capacitor storage and inductor storage. (true, false?) >>> >>>2. A magnetic field changing strength in time causes an electric field >>>in space that is >>>capable of producing currents in conductors. The process is called >>>"induction" >>>and is described by Faraday's Law. (true, false?) >>> >>>3. If a conducting circuit that encloses an area under a uniform >>>magnetic field that >>>totally covers the loop is changed in shape to enclose a different >>>amount of >>>magnetic flux, an emf will always be induced in the circuit due to the >>>changed >>>amount of flux. (true, false?) >>> >>>4. When instruments measuring E and B (electric and magnetic fields) >>>that are >>>stationary with respect to those fields are placed on a moving >>>reference frame >>>moving with constant velocity with respect to the fields, by >>>relativity, the meters >>>always show the same values regardless of the magnitude of the >>>(constant) >>>velocity of the frame so long as the velocity of the moving frame is >>>much slower >>>than the speed of light. (true, false?) >>> >>>5. For a point charge moving with a non-relativistic constant velocity >>>(not >>>accelerating) past an observer, the electric field from that charge >>>will be observed >>>to be the same spherical distribution found in electrostatics for a >>>non-moving >>>charge. (true, false) >>> >>>6. According to Maxwell's Equations a time-changing electric field as >>>in a charging >>>or discharging capacitor creates a displacement current through that >>>capacitor and >>>that displacement current creates a magnetic field just as if the >>>capacitor were not >>>there and a wire carrying the current was producing the field. (true, >>>false?) >>> >>>7. It can be shown that if a line charge segment is moving past you as >>>an observer at >>>some constant velocity, that not only does the apparent length of the >>>segment >>>change to the viewer, but by Lorentz contraction at relativistic >>>speeds the actual >>>length of the line charge segment changes as well. (true, false?) >>> >>>8. It is well known through experiment and observations that >>>electromagnetic waves >>>as predicted by Maxwell's Equations form a spectrum depending on >>>frequency >>>that runs without other changes from low frequency radio waves, up >>>through >>>microwaves, on up to sub-millimeter waves, thence to Infrared light, >>>then visible >>>light, ultraviolet light and on up into X-rays and cosmic rays. >>>(true. false) >>> >>>9. All electromagnetic clocks slow by the same amount as their frame >>>velocity >>>reaches significant relativistic speeds leading to the conclusion that >>>by relativity, a >>>"dilatation" of time takes place that affects all electromagnetic >>>events and even >>>including biological ones. (true , false?) >>> >>>10. Electromagnetic waves as described by Maxwell's Equations, >>>propagate through >>>the vacuum of empty space by relationships observed from those >>>equations that a >>>changing electric field creates a magnetic field and a changing >>>magnetic field >>>creates an electric field. These waves are unique in that they do not >>>require a >>>medium to propagate in. (true, false?) >>> >>>======================= >>> >>>Hey, Uncle Al, this test's for you! Show us your stuff now so we >>>won't have to call you "idiot"! > >S* > -- John Kennaugh
From: John Kennaugh on 23 Sep 2009 21:43 Bill Miller wrote: > >"John Kennaugh" <JKNG(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message >news:Uw7TWEEEreuKFwir(a)kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk... >> Benj wrote: >>>Are you a Maxwell loon? >> >> no. >> >>>How well do you understand Maxwell's equations? >> >> I don't but I know a man who does. Ivor Catt has made a major contribution >> in making computers work faster by studying how EM energy actually moves. >> He found that standard EM theory wasn't very useful. In his critical study >> of Maxwell's equations he points out that the accepted idea that the >> change of H field *causes* the change in E field and vice versa is pure >> fabrication. Nothing in the equations can justify that assumption. In fact >> Catt concludes that the only information contained in the equations is the >> speed c and that at every point E and H are in fixed proportion Zo = 377 >> ohms. Catt claims that this simple fact is not mentioned in any physics >> text. >> >> http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm >> >> Since physics has disowned the aether concept it was in danger of >> destroying its own foundations. To compensate it has tried to elevate the >> status of Maxwell's equations far beyond what is warranted and to imply >> that these are a worthy foundation on which to build a century of physics. >> >> Maxwell's equations are simply a re-arrangement of relationships worked >> out by Faraday in respect of charge and only verified at low speed. >> Maxwell discovered that the relationships could be arranged in a form >> which mirrored the mathematical description of a fluid. Now waves can >> propagate in a fluid and when Maxwell calculated, from Faraday's constants >> at what speed "EM waves" might be expected to travel he found that it was >> at the speed of light and concluded that light waves were EM waves. >> >> Note that although the equations are described as "wave equations" Catt >> concludes that they do not have a solution which gives undulations. What >> they describe is that the circumstances exist where waves might exist. In >> other words they describe not waves but a 'medium' in which waves might >> propagate. A century of physics is actually based on the belief that >> Maxwell had put the aether on a sound mathematical footing. Having >> disowned the aether that century of physics is supported by the myth that >> Maxwell's equations have some mystical significance transcending both >> their humble origins (Faraday) and their previously assumed physical >> interpretation (the aether). >> ><snip> > >IMO Catt's primary contribution is/was the recognition that there is no such >thaing as a capacitor. (Or an inductor, for that matter, but that derivation >is a good deal more abstruse!) > >Anyone that has ever worked with radio waves for any period of time knows >that an (electrically) short piece of open circuit transmission line acts >like a capacitor. > >Catt's contribution was to recognize and (partly) codify some advice he got >when working with PCB design way back when. A short piec of transmission >line does not act LIKE a capacitor. Instead, all capacitors ARE transmission >lines. > >One interesting side note is that we are all taught that a >capacitor/resistor network *always* charges and discharges in an exponential >fashion. As such, there are two absolutely true statements (we are taught.) > >First, the voltage across a capacitor in an RC network can *never* exceed >the supply voltage. > >Second, the voltage can *never* go to ZERO nor to 100% of the supply >voltage. > >Both of the above can be shown to be false for specific capacitor >configurations. And they are easy (and kinda fun) to model in SPICE. Have you come across a thing called a 'time domain reflectometer'. We found out a lot using that in the 70s when emitter coupled logic was in its infancy. It gives an incredibly sharp edge and then displays all the reflections along the route it is propagating along. It allows you to check how constant the impedance of a transmission line is, how good a connector is and what sort of capacitors are best at absorbing high frequencies as in de-coupling - not necessarily the ones you might think. At high frequency a supply track is inductive and a good high frequency capacitor is liable to 'tune' it while a lossey capacitor will absorb the energy. That was before multi-layer boards. Now you can have a nice 'supply plain'. -- John Kennaugh
From: John Kennaugh on 23 Sep 2009 21:55 blackhead wrote: >On 23 Sep, 13:08, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: >> On Sep 23, 5:30�am, John Kennaugh <J...(a)notworking.freeserve.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Benj wrote: >> > >Are you a Maxwell loon? >> > no. >> > >How well do you understand Maxwell's equations? >> > I don't but I know a man who does. Ivor Catt has made a major >> > contribution in making computers work faster by studying how EM energy >> > actually moves. He found that standard EM theory wasn't very useful. In >> > his critical study of Maxwell's equations he points out that the >> > accepted idea that the change of H field *causes* the change in E field >> > and vice versa is pure fabrication. Nothing in the equations can justify >> > that assumption. In fact Catt concludes that the only information >> > contained in the equations is the speed c and that at every point E and >> > H �are in fixed proportion Zo = 377 ohms. Catt claims that this simple >> > fact is not mentioned in any physics text. >> >> >http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm >> >> It's a very interesting link. I was not aware of Ivor Catt, but his >> conclusions are the same as those persons who eventually I will be >> referencing here. As you observed, his work already gives the answers >> to several of my questions. For anyone checking out the link I urge >> you to follow the sub-links in that URL to other papers such as the >> Maxwell Revisited one. Unfortunately the figures and drawings in the >> original German paper was on Compuserve which is now dead. Hopefully a >> working link will be put back. Check it out.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Ivor Catt with his so called "Catt Anomaly" doesn't understand how >charge can rearrange itself in a conductor to create fields: > >http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/catanoi.htm > It is a simple enough question which you haven't answered. I would be interested in your answer. -- John Kennaugh
From: Jonah Thomas on 24 Sep 2009 10:11
Benj <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote: > > "Benj" <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message > > You think there is a "power factor" of 90 degrees on TEM plane waves > > in a vacuum? > > ============================================== > > Don't be silly, no energy is lost to the vacuum or light wouldn't be > > able to travel millions of light-years. > > So you are saying that TEM waves in space do NOT have E and B 90 > degrees out of phase? > > > The electric and magnetic fields are at right angles to each other > > AND they are 90 degrees out of phase. > > And now you say they ARE 90 degrees out of phase? They are 90 degrees out of phase in space, not in time. > > You need an R in an LRC circuit to > > make it less than 90 degrees. Getting rid of the R is what > > superconducting research is all about, and why we use big fat copper > > wires in electric motors with big fat Farads next to 'em instead of > > little skinny tungsten wires that we use in light bulbs. > > Yes, E and B in an LRC circuit are shifted in phase and the phase > shift does depend on R. So? The point is this is NOT the situation > with waves in space. I've run into this with Androcles and put it aside because it did not affect the current topics we were trying to get clear. I believed just as he did before I looked at the details. If you start with electric circuits it's obvious they should be out of phase, and only natural to suppose they should be out of phase in the same dimension since that's what you've dealt with before. Androcles is a sharp thinker even if he has this one blind spot. |