Professor Robert Kiehn and Electricity
R. M. Kiehn
Emeritus Professor of Physics
University of Houston
This follows the talk
by Forrest Bishop on the www yesterday 18 February 2012 at "Natural
Philosophy Alliance" .
I trust this email is
addressed to Professor Robert Kiehn via toptorsion@aol.com
It is important to
gain as much benefit as possible from his role.
During Forrest’s talk
yesterday, Professor Kiehn came up with some of the
classic ripostes – Ivor Catt had not read the latest
books on the subject, his version of classical electromagnetism was outdated,
and so forth.
There is a suggestion
that he was reacting to Forrest’s apparent assertion that electric charge does
not exist. Certainly, during the discussion which followed, Robert Kiehn asked me to respond to various “experimental proofs”
of the existence of the electron.
This raises the
spectre that if Catt fails to refute experimental proof that the electron, or
that electricity, exists, then all Catt’s work has no value (including for
instance http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2603.htm. )
I would venture that
Catt has never said that electricity, or the electron, does not exist. This may
be because Catt is fully aware that should he make such assertion, all his work
will be ignored. Perhaps all he says is that in its primary role it is not fit
for purpose – the way a battery lights a lamp. "The Catt Question"
First we have to
determine what is the pedigree of electricity, or the electron.
When I finally
concluded that I would never again be able to publish in refereed journals, and
so accredited experts would never again read what I wrote, I asked an
elementary question about classical electromagnetism, "The Catt Question" .
The failure of the
Great and the Good to answer that question satisfactorily means that we do not
in fact have a classical theory, unless the way a battery lights a lamp is not
the original ancestor of today’s electricity and electron. Perhaps I should
rather say conventional electricity has no proper basis if it cannot help a
battery to light a lamp. If it cannot help a battery to light a lamp, what is
its primary role? Does a Primitive, for instance electricity or the electron,
have to have a primary role? If it fails in one basic role, lighting a lamp,
does it survive?
Note that Robert Kiehn asks me to address certain experimental proofs that
the electron, or perhaps electricity, exists. This is countered by my asking
how electricity lights a lamp. Is a proof that electricity exists
the end of the problem, even if electricity cannot help a battery to light a
lamp? Its offspring, Displacement Current, is also in difficulty in its primary
role, that of creating magnetic field. [Note 1] This is presumably fine in a
capacitor, but it must not create magnetic field when a voltage step travels at
the speed of light along a transmission line, where dD/dt appears at the front face of the step, generating a
horizontal magnetic field. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf
. The essential feature of a TEM Wave is that it only has lateral (vertical)
magnetic field, and no longitudinal (horizontal) field. See representations of
the TEM step at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/illus/fig004.gif
; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/illus/fig005.gif This has not been noticed because the only
TEM Wave considered has been the sine wave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tem_wave.gif
. The sine wave hopelessly obscures the fact that in a TEM Wave, Displacement
Current must not generate magnetic field. It is also obscured by the “Rolling
Wave” version of the TEM Wave, where E causes H causes E. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2604.htm
. The false “Rolling Wave” is promoted by Feynman and Einstein. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0102em.htm
.
We reach the position
where electric charge, electric current and displacement current cannot perform
their traditional functions – which they were invented (or discovered) to
perform. What then? We cannot resolve the problem by dismissing them as
non-existent factors in electromagnetic theory, because then everything we say
will be ignored. We must let them survive, limping along badly mauled. We may
well find “In
Some Corner of a Foreign Field” electricity and the electron doing a nice
little job, not lying dead.
We very much
need Professor Robert Kiehn to do two things; on the one hand answer "The Catt Question" and also tell us
whether the displacement current in a TEM Step does or does not
cause magnetic field http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf , and on the other
hand teach us the various proofs that the electron and electricity exist. My experience of the last 40 years tells me what he
will do, but I hope he does not run true to form. [20
February 2014. Surprise, surprise! No answer from Kiehn.]
[Note
1]. David Tombe recently claimed that Maxwell did
not invent Displacement Current in order to resolve a problem of the magnetic
field around a capacitor. However, Heaviside said he did, and it is asserted by
text books in the first half of the 20th century. See Wikipedia .
(In the second half, the books become too obscure for interpretation.) Whatever the reason for its invention, Displacement Current is
always supposed to generate a magnetic field. For more than a century,
it has not been noticed that at the front face of a TEM step there is dD/dt and therefore there is displacement current, which must
not destroy the pure TEM step by generating a forward (horizontal) magnetic
field.
Ivor Catt 19 February 2012
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Saturday, February
18, 2012 9:40 PM
To: HARRY RICKER ; toptorsion@aol.com
Cc: "Greg Volk" ; "Forrest Bishop" ; ivor@ivorcatt.com ; david@dehilster.com
Subject: Answer to the
Question Proposed By Ivor Catt
Dear Professor Robert
Kiehn,
re the two hour www lecture by Forrest Bishop for “Natural Philosophy
Alliance” today.
Saturday, February 18, 2012: 4 hours ago
Introduction
to and Implications of Ivor Catt's TEM Wave
Electrodynamics for 2
hours
Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)
Having worked in the
field for fifty years, I have come up with more than one insight at more than
one level – some complex, some blatant. Some of them do not depend on the
validity of others of them. For instance, my comments on “self resonant
frequency” are completely independent. http://www.ivorcatt.com/2603.htm
Thirty years ago,
when (after 15 years of trying) http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrcam77jun.htm
I became convinced that I would no longer be able to publish in refereed
journals as I had in the past http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm
, in 1982 I retreated to asking a very simple question about the classical
theory which was being taught to 12 year olds throughout the world. It later
came to be called “The Catt Question”. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm
No professional with an established reputation in the field would make any
comment, a situation which has continued for the next 30 years, except for two
accredited experts [actually four 20/2/14] who were selected by their superiors and
instructed to write to me. Each of them did this, but once only. They totally
contradicted each other, and refused to do anything about it. (Third parties,
not myself, asked them to do something about it.)
Neither would their superiors. Neither would the relevant learned societies –
The Royal Society, the IEEE and the IEE/IET. The IEE did venture the following;
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm
“Also we note Secker 25oct95; "The reason that the Catt Anomaly [Question] has been around so
long is that the 'experts' have not thought it of sufficient standing to take
the trouble to demolish it!"” . It is most unfortunate that I called it
an anomaly, losing a decade, until I changed the name to “The Catt Question”. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/44.htm
. It is probably not possible to “demolish” a Question.
All of the above is
within the framework of classical electromagnetism, based on what is taught to
12 year olds and undergraduates, or should be. There is nothing revolutionary
about it. You appear to be inventing, or quoting, a revolutionary explanation
of how a battery lights a lamp, which may or may not bear on my Question. http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrcam77jun.htm
Another member of npa introduces the photon into the
story, which is revolutionary. That is, he appears to say that a battery uses
photons to light a lamp. We also need clarification from him. When commenting
on my work, the idea that photons are somehow involved is also broached by Ian Darney in Electronics World, December 2011, page 37, which
unfortunately I do not seem to have put on the www yet.
What you said today
was totally unclear to me. You appeared to move away from charge and current
when a battery lights a lamp, which you said was “historical”. I think you say
that, along with all those who have kept up to date (unlike me), the new theory
involved Quantum this or that and also vector potential and scalar potential.
It is important that you direct me to references which contain these (according
to you) established up to date ideas, and also, if possible, give us a precis of the current state of the art yourself, on how a
battery lights a lamp.
Ivor Catt
From: HARRY RICKER
Sent: Saturday, February
18, 2012 6:52 PM
Cc: "Greg Volk" ; "Forrest Bishop" ; ivor@ivorcatt.com
Subject: Answer to the
Question Proposed By Ivor Catt
Hi,
I want to be sure
that there is a follow up to the question proposed by Ivor
Catt. How does the energy get from the battery to the lamp? Please could you explain
physically how this takes place.
You made the
assertion that charge exists and offered some statements in proof of this
assertion. I
didn't understand all of them. Since these were offered as criticisms, and since I would
like to be able to see if these are serious and valid objections, I will need
to have some more detail.
I did not understand the reasoning behind
the moving electrons radiation question. Why is this a
proof?
You mentioned a proof
that involved placing objects between the plates of a capacitor. I didn’t follow this argument. Could
you elaborate?
I am well aware of
the current ideas in physics regarding the potentials. It is not clear to me why such ideas
invalidate the old classical concepts of electric and magnetic fields. It would
be nice to have a discussion of just how this model would be an improvement
upon the classical methods of electrical engineers. So it would be really nice
to have a explanation of the problem of power being
sent down a transmission line in terms of potentials.
I hope that this will
be a process in which we can learn something.
Harry
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: Toptorsion@aol.com
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 2:35 AM
To: kc3mx@yahoo.com ; ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk
Cc: the.volks@comcast.net ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; ivor@ivorcatt.com ; david@dehilster.com ; rmlaf@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Answer to the Question Proposed By Ivor
Catt
Dear Sir
As I find
time I will respond to your questions in detail.
***
However, I suggest
you download the free pdf file of my 4th monograph,
"Plasmas and
Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics" from
http://www22.pair.com/csdc/download/ebookvol4.pdf
1. Study Chapter 1 as
an introduction to topological thermodynamics.
*
Study Chapter 2 where
the topological notation is changed such that
topological thermodynamics becomes recognizable as Electromagnetism.
Maxwell's equations
are deduced without regard to a choice of geometry,
metric, or coordinate systems.
*
Study Chapter 3 where
non-equilibrium EM theory is compared to
equilibrium EM theory.
*
It is also
demonstrated (in section 3.4.3) , how the system of
partial differential
equations that define the wave equation, can be solved for singular solutions,
which not only satisfy the wave equation, but also satisfy the non-linear
quadratic Eikonal equation.
These singular solutions are the solutions to the wave equation that are not
sinusoidal waves.
Instead, the singular
solutions, represent propagating step function
discontinuities in E and B fields.
These discontinuities
are what is meant by a signal.
*
Also check out
section 3.5.3 where the concepts of TM TE and TEM solutions to the
Partial differential
equation set described as the wave equation are defined.
Subsequently many
examples are worked out (with solutions checked by Maple).
*
In chapter 4 after
some discussions about equilibrium and non-equilibrium plasmas,
attention is turned to the production of many simple examples starting with 4.4.2
et seq.
Also consider the Eikonal theory details presented in CHAPTER 14.2
In the reference
bibliography are more that 40 publications about ideas present in the volume 4
monograph. Most of them are available on line as well as in the journals
I will
try to cover more of your "questions" but until you understand the
concepts of the Eikonal
equation (applicable to discontinuities such as shock waves
of both transverse and longitudinal
varieties, that appear in fluids as well as plasmas) I doubt that we will have a
common ground.
[Here Kiehn has company. Sir Michael Pepper mentions
plasma when
discussing "The Catt Question"
. See Pepper .]
I suggest you read at
least the first 15 pages of "the Theory of Space Time and
Gravitation" by V. Fock,
or "Electromagnetic Theory and Geometrical Optics" by Kline and
Kay.
Regards, RMK
By the way I sent you
an email with 4 or 5 textbooks that have discussions about the concept of Zo , the
free space impedance.
In a message dated
2/19/2012 12:41:03 P.M. Central Standard Time, kc3mx@yahoo.com writes:
|
Dear Professor Kiehen, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22m.htm Ivor Catt |
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: Greg Volk
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 3:14 AM
To: Toptorsion@aol.com ; kc3mx@yahoo.com ; ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk
Cc: forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; ivor@ivorcatt.com ; david@dehilster.com ; rmlaf@comcast.net
Subject: Re: Answer to the Question Proposed By Ivor
Catt
Prof. Kiehn,
Thanks for the reply,
and I look forward to your detailed answer, since I myself
having been thinking about the question, “How does a battery light a
lamp?”
Though I don’t quite see the
direct relevance to Catt’s question, I do heartily recommend your work to
anyone unfamiliar with it. Thanks.
Kind regards,
Greg
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www22.pair.com/csdc/download/ebookvol4.pdf
Kiehn; “ .... The
electromagnetic system is a refinement of the thermodynamic system such as to
include the concept of charge and currents. .... “
Where’s
the beef?
We once had a cat which disliked
certain food which we insisted on giving it. One day we came
back to find it sitting at the opposite side of the room with a certain
expression on its face. It had torn up pieces of paper and covered the
disliked food with pieces of paper (admittedly with no maths written on them).
Do people hate electromagnetic theory, or fear it, or what?
Here are examples of electromagnetic theory covered over in mathematics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_current
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations
There is mathematics, some of it quite complex, within real electromagnetic theory, as in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/em.htm , but it has nothing to do with the conventional clutter force-fed to students.
