Talk:Ivor Catt/Archive 17

message: Light current and Kevin, my initial feeling after a brief glance through the paper , it is worse than Catt's paper; it makes the same fundamental error of assuming a vertical front on the current (zero rise time), which is impossible because you get radio emission from accelerated electrons and electrons accelerated from a net current of 0 to i amps instantaneously implies the acceleration of electrons is (1 mm/s or so)/(0 seconds) = infinity.  This is a lie because we don't get an infinite radio emission from a logic step.  What happens is that all real logic steps are not vertical but have a rise time, and this is crucial rather than technical trivia.  So the authors of this paper have made the wrong simplifying assumptions.  In addition, they should cite and discuss previous work on this subject area at the beginning of their paper, which they don't.  It is basically an unhelpful armwaving paper, but not as bad as this one: ..  Contrary to what Kevin says, it doesn't (at first glance) say what the displacement current is.  Nigel 172.143.55.86 10:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nigel, a zero-rise time front will pass a point on the line in zero time, so Δt = 0. In zero time there can be no change of charge, so ΔQ = 0, and consequentally, ΔD = 0 as well. ΔD/Δt is thus 0/0 which is not infinite, but indefinite, it can be any value at all, and you have to work out what it is by some other means. For any non-zero Δt, ΔQ over the whole line (or any part of it that entirely contains the wavefront) is IΔt, where I is the current flowing into the line. ΔQ and ΔD are thus independent of the rise time, and the paper makes no assumption thereto. In fact by explicitly using displacement current the authors sidestep the entire (irrelevant) issue of rise time. -- Kevin Brunt 12:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nigel enters discussion 

message: Alfred, the zero-rise time step is one of Nigel's particular bêtes-noires; he also thinks that displacement current is "radio transmission". I must agree about simplifying assumptions - some of Catt's writing is based on quote-mining introductory textbooks, and misusing the over-simplifications he finds. (I'd mention electron drift velocity in this context, except that Nigel and I always get into crossed purposes about it!) -- Kevin Brunt 19:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kevin, wrong!  (1) The zero rise time for a current implies acceleration from a mean drift velocity of 0 to a mean drift velocity of whatever (1 mm/s) over zero time, which is infinite acceleration.  This can't occur for the reasons already given, such as the fact that infinite acceleration of charge would produce an infinitly intense burst of radio emission.  You are getting yourself tangled up.  (2) The 'displacement current' is no more radio emission than modern thermodynamics (kinetic theory and radiation) are synonymous with caloric and phlogiston.  Your sneer on this point is therefore bunk.  I'm not saying displacement current is radiation, I'm saying the phenomena normally attributed to aethereal charge motion are actually accounted for by radiation.  (Any effect from vacuum displacement current is due to charge polarisation in response to the the electric field set up by light speed radiation, not vice-versa.)  The difference has profound consequences in physics, changing the nature of displacement current into something equivalent to the time-dependent Schroedinger equation and Dirac's equation; energy transfer by time-varying fields .  Nigel 172.189.116.131 10:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Kevin you make the arm-waving and false statement: "Your instantaneous acceleration to drift velocity ignores the fact that the electrons are continuously changing velocity as they exchange energy with each other."  If current changes instantaneously, electrons have to move instantly.  If you drop a white feather, Kevin, and it instantly moves at drift speed with zero acceleration time, the mean acceleration equals [change in velocity]/[zero time] = infinity.  This breaks the laws of motion, since Newton's F=ma implies infinite force for infinite acceleration.  The proper explanation I've given time and again here is the only one which works.  (What's the difference between self-confidence and arrogance in asserting an explanation?  Answer: having factual evidence you are right!  I remember an argument with a physics teacher where I won.  He didn't thank me for teaching him physics but was instead rude.  Don't become a physicist if you expect thanks.)  Nigel 172.143.208.206 11:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: F=ma disproves your false statement, so it certainly is not trivial for your model.  I told you before that the work energy in the electron motion of drift is trivial.  It seems that you just want to be silly and tell me what I've already stated as if I wasn't the one to tell you.  Your statement that the wavefront goes slower than light in vacuo is false; I'm discussing the case where the two conductors are separated by vacuum.  In this case the wavefront goes at light velocity for vacuum.  The reason is that electrons at the front are being accelerated by light velocity electromagnetic radiation coming from the other conductor, as already explained to you (illustration at top of page).  This is a matter of fact, not of opinion, and you're just plain wrong.  Admit it!  Nigel 172.209.184.108 09:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kevin said "since an electron possesses charge as well as mass, accelerating it requires an input of energy to supply the created magnetic field due to the moving charge as well as that required to supply the kinetic energy of the moving mass."  I don't quite buy that, Kevin.  The magnetic field that is, as you say, bound to the moving charge, can be viewed as the result of the charge in motion or I, as the observer, in motion with respect to the charge.  That is, I can transform the magnetic field away by changing my frame of reference.  However, I cannot transform EM radiation away so I'm thinking you must be referring to the the energy that is carried away by the EM radiation.  Alfred Centauri 22:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Kevin: your statement that you can change the speed of electricity by altering the shape of the transmission line shows you are talking nonsense ...  I've explained to you that QED Yang-Mills component of the Standard Model which accurately describes existing data and has predicted major experimental discoveries at CERN and elsewhere, explains that the electromagnetic field is composed of exchange boson radiation: electric fields are caused by this as are magnetic ones.  ...  All the best, Nigel 172.143.209.196 11:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero-rise time step 

message: Alfred, I'm not sure that we're in the same scenario! Nigel and I are arguing over the flow of current in a conductor. The issue is that Nigel thinks that the electric and magnetic fields are separate from the motion of the electrons, and has had an article published in Electronics World which purports to prove his case by demonstrating that the kinetic energy of a lot of electrons moving at 1mm/second is not very much. I'm not sure how much of Catt's work Nigel currently agrees with; Catt thinks that the "Heaviside energy current" (E \times H) view of a DC current in a conductor is the same thing as a "TEM wave" in free space, and I'm far from clear how Nigel's "light velocity electromagnetic radiation coming from the other conductor" fits in. I get the impression that Nigel is not distinguishing between "field" and "radiation" and that he's really talking about displacement current. -- Kevin Brunt 00:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kevin: your statement that you can change the speed of electricity by altering the shape of the transmission line shows you are talking nonsense ...  I've explained to you that QED Yang-Mills component of the Standard Model which accurately describes existing data and has predicted major experimental discoveries at CERN and elsewhere, explains that the electromagnetic field is composed of exchange boson radiation: electric fields are caused by this as are magnetic ones.  ...  All the best, Nigel 172.143.209.196 11:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevins reply to Alfred