This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
x = electronic switch
_____________________________ /x | / x | / x | / x direction of incident waves| / x <------------> | / x | GEN/ <-- matching sect | \ x | \ x | \ x | \ x | \ x | \ x | \x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x| \ ^ / \ | / \ dir of o/p / \ waves| / \ | / \ / \ Matching / \ section / \ | / \ | / \ \ / / \ / \ / \ / LOAD & DETECTOR
Well no I dont think so becuase the switches (x) in the bottom row are all open. So how can there be diffraction? Or are you talking about when the bottom row of sitches are closed?-- Light current 17:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
So does the diffraction cause the direction of propagating to change thro 90 degrees?-- Light current 18:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
OK Good Luck!
Well the problem with the mathematical theory is, as AC has shown, that if you analyse the situation after the input pulse is finished, you get a dc voltage, but no current on the plates because those are the contraints (boundary conditions) you are putting on the equations. As I said before, I dont think there's any way of really telling the difference without disturbing the waves. So it would have to be tried in hardware.
Now the problem is, if the actual expt showed no delay in the pulse coming out, would that show there was only dc on the plates or would it show that there were already existing counter-propagting waves in the orthogonal direction too!?
Again, I think that we are well into the area of philosophy here, but if theres no way to tell the difference, in my book, then there is no difference. So, in short, I dont think the theory can be proved or disproved. All we know is that waves enter, and when a load is connected again, waves come out. What happens in between cannot be known for certain. I think it can be thought of either way-- which really is what Ive been trying to show.;-)-- Light current 04:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
This is pretty standard stuff, in all the textbooks I think. Pfalstad 18:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
A lot of this stuff doesn't seem controversial at all. Maybe just mistated? For instance,
This is obviously true, not controversial. All components can be modeled as transmission lines, but it's usually not important to be that detailed, and just treat them as if the charges travel instantaneously. They can be modeled in an even more detailed way than the transmission line model, too, if desired.
I don't really like the tone of the article. Stuff like the public arguments section needs references. — Omegatron 15:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The <s!>five </s!> six stages of theory acceptance:
a) Its not true, it cant be true
b) It might be true, but it has no importance.
c) It is true, but has no real meaning
d) It is true and maybe its important
e) I thought of it first
f) Its not controvertial at all - it obvious! -- Light current 20:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure I've read in other (mainstream) books that a conductor acts like an infinite dielectric. Sometimes the math works that way. Of course, I can't imagine how you could model an infinite dielectric at the molecular level, other than as a conductor. If a material is infinitely polarizable, that means the (net) charges can move anywhere, so it's a conductor. Does Catt deal with solid state physics at all? I don't see how he could, with all these wild ideas. And how does he deal with resistance? Pfalstad 03:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
By Catt supporter?
I believe these additions have been made by a reputable and knowledgable contributor on this subject by the name of Mr Nigel Cook. Who may shortly be getting his own page!!-- Light current 03:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Why not? -- Light current 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"... the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly..." - http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince06.htm
If you look at Catt's experiences in life, you see that it is a very soul destroying activity to be an innovator. He is continually fighting battles with only lukewarm support!
That whole section seemed full of irrelevant details and innuendo. If you want to talk about Catt's ATC proposal, the need for it, and the "suppression" of it, be my guest. But stick to the facts. But leading with some story about an ATC disaster (taking for granted that it wouldn't have happened if people had listened to Catt) seems very POV. And what does that email have to do with anything? Pfalstad 19:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Pfalstad and Light current, is there any way to get a photo of Catt on the site, say the small Electronics World http://www.ivorcatt.com/illus/ivor_anam.jpg (which is openly published and is can be used under fair-trading copyright law provided credit is given Electronics World magazine) which shows Catt with the "product of the year award" from a magazine for his 1988 160 MB spiral WSI product?
What is it? Pfalstad 19:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
ElectroMagnetic Compatability for electronic equipment.
It appears that Nigel cook uses the term displacement current to describe what we all know and love as em energy! Extract form his page:
Charge is not conserved which is why the fifth Maxwell equation was dropped when charge creation from gamma rays exceeding the energy equivalent of two electrons was discovered in 1932. The abuse from ignorant crackpots is well documented. Catt himself refuses to concentrate on the facts. The ‘displacement current’ is radio wave energy. The entire electromagnetic theory of Maxwell’s light/radio is false.
my bolding.
This terminology usage does not help anyone in sorting out the real truth an Im sure Ivor Catt did not confuse the two terms displacement current and em energy -- Light current 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have noted the differing directions. I personally do not believe in anything flowing from one plate to another. I believe em energy flows parallel to the plates and this is the direction of the energy current.-- Light current 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Well I have my own theory about this and its not the same as you describe, but I feel it inappropriate to discuss it here as we are trying to write an article on Catt and only on Catt!-- Light current 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The only time delay in a capacitor charging with energy current is the time it takes to do the round trip along the capacitors TL-- Light current 20:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe wave guides operate differently from TLs. Heaviside obviously knew as little about them as I do-- Light current 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand this para.-- Light current 20:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I have asked before for you to justify your claims of radio via capacitance. i.e. what is the value of capacitance, over 500mi, what is the loss etc. No reply!-- Light current 20:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
We must assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the above material under hdg Nigel Cooks view and indented by one tab stop, is the work of Mr Nigel Cook. It certainly looks like his style!.-- Light current 20:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Why not calculate the approximate capacitance then and work out the loss (in dB) to see if it makes any sense at all as a theory? I suggest the mechanism would be completely impractical but you could prove me wrong!-- Light current 09:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
My v. quick calc shows that, with plates 1 sq m spaced at 100km the capacitance is 8.854 E-19 F. Assuming an angular freq of 100Mr/s, this gives a reactance of 1E10 ohms. Now assume 1k source and load impedances (quite high I would think for radio). This gives an attn of approx 1E-7. In dBV this is 140dB. Thatis ther is 140dB voltage loss between transmitter and reciever. Are you seriously expecting people to believe that ridiculous figure?
Correct. It is transmitted as em energy!-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Radio wave yes. displacement current , no-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
What catt will do is what we are writing about.-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Not our problem on WP!-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
We are not a propaganda machine for you or Catt or anyone!-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No comment. I have my own views but Im not going to air them here.-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I have some sympathy for Catt., but WP is not a shoulder to cry on!-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Noted. But this is your POV-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC) We will aim to give a fair and just representation of the facts as the consensus of editors see them.-- Light current 03:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
x = electronic switch
_____________________________ /x | / x | / x | / x direction of incident waves| / x <------------> | / x | GEN/ <-- matching sect | \ x | \ x | \ x | \ x | \ x | \ x | \x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x| \ ^ / \ | / \ dir of o/p / \ waves| / \ | / \ / \ Matching / \ section / \ | / \ | / \ \ / / \ / \ / \ / LOAD & DETECTOR
Well no I dont think so becuase the switches (x) in the bottom row are all open. So how can there be diffraction? Or are you talking about when the bottom row of sitches are closed?-- Light current 17:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
So does the diffraction cause the direction of propagating to change thro 90 degrees?-- Light current 18:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
OK Good Luck!
Well the problem with the mathematical theory is, as AC has shown, that if you analyse the situation after the input pulse is finished, you get a dc voltage, but no current on the plates because those are the contraints (boundary conditions) you are putting on the equations. As I said before, I dont think there's any way of really telling the difference without disturbing the waves. So it would have to be tried in hardware.
Now the problem is, if the actual expt showed no delay in the pulse coming out, would that show there was only dc on the plates or would it show that there were already existing counter-propagting waves in the orthogonal direction too!?
Again, I think that we are well into the area of philosophy here, but if theres no way to tell the difference, in my book, then there is no difference. So, in short, I dont think the theory can be proved or disproved. All we know is that waves enter, and when a load is connected again, waves come out. What happens in between cannot be known for certain. I think it can be thought of either way-- which really is what Ive been trying to show.;-)-- Light current 04:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
This is pretty standard stuff, in all the textbooks I think. Pfalstad 18:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
A lot of this stuff doesn't seem controversial at all. Maybe just mistated? For instance,
This is obviously true, not controversial. All components can be modeled as transmission lines, but it's usually not important to be that detailed, and just treat them as if the charges travel instantaneously. They can be modeled in an even more detailed way than the transmission line model, too, if desired.
I don't really like the tone of the article. Stuff like the public arguments section needs references. — Omegatron 15:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The <s!>five </s!> six stages of theory acceptance:
a) Its not true, it cant be true
b) It might be true, but it has no importance.
c) It is true, but has no real meaning
d) It is true and maybe its important
e) I thought of it first
f) Its not controvertial at all - it obvious! -- Light current 20:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure I've read in other (mainstream) books that a conductor acts like an infinite dielectric. Sometimes the math works that way. Of course, I can't imagine how you could model an infinite dielectric at the molecular level, other than as a conductor. If a material is infinitely polarizable, that means the (net) charges can move anywhere, so it's a conductor. Does Catt deal with solid state physics at all? I don't see how he could, with all these wild ideas. And how does he deal with resistance? Pfalstad 03:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
By Catt supporter?
I believe these additions have been made by a reputable and knowledgable contributor on this subject by the name of Mr Nigel Cook. Who may shortly be getting his own page!!-- Light current 03:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Why not? -- Light current 20:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
"... the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly..." - http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince06.htm
If you look at Catt's experiences in life, you see that it is a very soul destroying activity to be an innovator. He is continually fighting battles with only lukewarm support!
That whole section seemed full of irrelevant details and innuendo. If you want to talk about Catt's ATC proposal, the need for it, and the "suppression" of it, be my guest. But stick to the facts. But leading with some story about an ATC disaster (taking for granted that it wouldn't have happened if people had listened to Catt) seems very POV. And what does that email have to do with anything? Pfalstad 19:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Pfalstad and Light current, is there any way to get a photo of Catt on the site, say the small Electronics World http://www.ivorcatt.com/illus/ivor_anam.jpg (which is openly published and is can be used under fair-trading copyright law provided credit is given Electronics World magazine) which shows Catt with the "product of the year award" from a magazine for his 1988 160 MB spiral WSI product?
What is it? Pfalstad 19:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
ElectroMagnetic Compatability for electronic equipment.
It appears that Nigel cook uses the term displacement current to describe what we all know and love as em energy! Extract form his page:
Charge is not conserved which is why the fifth Maxwell equation was dropped when charge creation from gamma rays exceeding the energy equivalent of two electrons was discovered in 1932. The abuse from ignorant crackpots is well documented. Catt himself refuses to concentrate on the facts. The ‘displacement current’ is radio wave energy. The entire electromagnetic theory of Maxwell’s light/radio is false.
my bolding.
This terminology usage does not help anyone in sorting out the real truth an Im sure Ivor Catt did not confuse the two terms displacement current and em energy -- Light current 21:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I have noted the differing directions. I personally do not believe in anything flowing from one plate to another. I believe em energy flows parallel to the plates and this is the direction of the energy current.-- Light current 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Well I have my own theory about this and its not the same as you describe, but I feel it inappropriate to discuss it here as we are trying to write an article on Catt and only on Catt!-- Light current 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The only time delay in a capacitor charging with energy current is the time it takes to do the round trip along the capacitors TL-- Light current 20:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe wave guides operate differently from TLs. Heaviside obviously knew as little about them as I do-- Light current 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand this para.-- Light current 20:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I have asked before for you to justify your claims of radio via capacitance. i.e. what is the value of capacitance, over 500mi, what is the loss etc. No reply!-- Light current 20:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
We must assume, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the above material under hdg Nigel Cooks view and indented by one tab stop, is the work of Mr Nigel Cook. It certainly looks like his style!.-- Light current 20:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Why not calculate the approximate capacitance then and work out the loss (in dB) to see if it makes any sense at all as a theory? I suggest the mechanism would be completely impractical but you could prove me wrong!-- Light current 09:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
My v. quick calc shows that, with plates 1 sq m spaced at 100km the capacitance is 8.854 E-19 F. Assuming an angular freq of 100Mr/s, this gives a reactance of 1E10 ohms. Now assume 1k source and load impedances (quite high I would think for radio). This gives an attn of approx 1E-7. In dBV this is 140dB. Thatis ther is 140dB voltage loss between transmitter and reciever. Are you seriously expecting people to believe that ridiculous figure?
Correct. It is transmitted as em energy!-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Radio wave yes. displacement current , no-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
What catt will do is what we are writing about.-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Not our problem on WP!-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
We are not a propaganda machine for you or Catt or anyone!-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
No comment. I have my own views but Im not going to air them here.-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
I have some sympathy for Catt., but WP is not a shoulder to cry on!-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Noted. But this is your POV-- Light current 03:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC) We will aim to give a fair and just representation of the facts as the consensus of editors see them.-- Light current 03:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)