What is your EM crankosity?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 23 Sep 2009 15:26 blackhead wrote: > On 23 Sep, 16:09, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> blackhead wrote: >>> On 23 Sep, 15:09, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >>>> blackhead wrote: >>>>> Perhaps you're querying the bit "they propagate independently from the >>>>> source at right angles to one another." which upon reflection isn't >>>>> true. That E depends upon charge and its velocity and acceleration >>>>> whereas B depends upon only the velocity and acceleration of charge, >>>>> rather than causing one another would be correct, I think. >>>> Just as I though--You have no idea what you are talking about. >>> Can you correct me then? >> I tried to email you a relevant section from Griffiths, "Introduction >> to Electrodynamics", 3rd edition, but the email bounced: >> >> The following addresses had delivery problems: >> >> <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> >> Permanent Failure: 550_account_expired >> Delivery last attempted at Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:04:44 -0000 > > My email isn't valid and thanks, you seem sincere about helping > people. > > I suspect you tried to email me the section on the Lienard Wiechert > radiation fields of a moving charge. In those equations, E is a > function of the charge q, the retarded velocity v, retarded > acceleration a and retarded radius vector from the field point to the > charge, with B = 1/c r/R x E. So B is always perpendicular to E and r. > So although a changing E and changing B don't cause one another, they > aren't independent of one another. <smiling>
From: Bill Miller on 23 Sep 2009 15:35 "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. Bill
From: Bill Miller on 23 Sep 2009 15:42 "blackhead" <larryharson(a)softhome.net> wrote in message news:822cb0b0-d233-47f1-983c-6d0cf0dbc3e9(a)p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... 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: > > > > > > <snip>Ivor Catt with his so called "Catt Anomaly" doesn't understand how charge can rearrange itself in a conductor to create fields: (or vice versa?) http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/catanoi.htm I agree, and it is a shame, because it kinda tarnishes an otherwise very impressive set of conclusions. My favorite is his analysis of "Copper as a Dielectric." !!! Bill
From: Androcles on 23 Sep 2009 15:50 "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt4ye(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:7hvbgtF2vr29rU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > "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. > > Bill Nobody ever taught me the voltage across a capacitor in an RC network can *never* exceed the supply voltage. I expect you are thinking DC in which case it would be true, but clearly if one applies AC the voltage across a capacitor approaches the peak-to-peak voltage.
From: Benj on 23 Sep 2009 16:59
On Sep 23, 2:53 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > "Benj" <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message > > Are you a Maxwell loon? > > How well do you understand Maxwell's equations? > > Ten easy questions to measure your kookosity: > > <snip> > Um... > > Well, as near as I can figure, it looks like ALL of the <snipped> questions > are false. ======================= DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! Folks we have a WINNER! (and it wasn't the Jewish heritage of Uncle Al, the jargon glossary). (It also wasn't ANY of the ad hominems who spend their days calling everyone else stooopid who were scared to enter) ======================= ALL statements are demonstrably false! Score: = number of statements you said were false 10.You are a major kook and are the crankiest. You know nothing about science and should go read a freshman physics text book. Dont forget your tinfoil reading helmet when doing that. Youll be lucky to stay alive. 9. You are very much out of the mainstream and know nothing about science. Youre fired. And youll never work or publish in science again. 8. You have major problems in your profession. You just got a memo from the boss to come to his office to see if you can be brought round before its too late. 7. Your paper has been rejected for publication even though none of the topics covered here were mentioned in it. 6. You have serious gaps in your electromagnetic understanding. To keep your job youd better tell everyone your specialty is acoustics. 5. You have a pretty good understanding of science but half your answers are wrong. But thats OK since you probably teach high school. 4. Your traditional science is pretty good, but you made a handful of mistakes. You are probably an engineer. 3. Since you only made three mistakes, you probably are a college physics professor whose primary responsibility is teaching freshman physics. 2. Making just two deviations from traditional understanding likely means you are a college physics professor, but your primary responsibility is to teach, physics appreciation to education majors. 1. You are a post-doc employed on a government funded research project on which you are doing all the work and thinking and for which the full professor whose name and reputation are on the original proposal will take all the credit. 0. You are a highly paid government project administrator with a perfect understanding of traditional science. You have a Ph. D., you have hundreds of patents with your name on them and thousands of papers that list you as one of the authors. You are an ultimate authority ready to debunk any crank science when asked to do so by the major media. |