When in a hole, stop digging

 

Electromagnetic Theory breaks down with Digital Hardware Design

[See item 10 below; Now Mr Big says a coax does not support a TEM Wave! What next?       Ivor Catt     8apr02]

 

Riposte
I make the commitment that anyone wishing to counter any assertion made on this site will be guaranteed a hyperlink to a website of their choosing at the point where the disputed assertion is made.    ivor@ivorcatt.com

Ivor Catt. 18june02

4

The material below shows that, if the young lecturer (or even old lecturer), given the task of lecturing on electromagnetic theory, finds no help from the text books, he will certainly get no help from the www if he does a Google search for “Transverse Electromagnetic Wave”. On 1apr02, the first Google hit was this mess, see below at 1, which gives the relative phases of E and H wrongly.    Ivor Catt        2apr02

 

It is interesting to investigate the pathology of late 20th century science, at the end of 80 years of attack by “Modern Physics”. It appears that self-styled expert Bigelow (below), who is in the first Google ranking, remains confused as to the relative phases of E and H in a TEM Wave.

 

One interesting rider of the Bigelow stuff is that the Poynting Vector cannot relate to physical reality, but will be degraded to a mathematical convenience. Under Bigelow, electric energy and magnetic energy are distinct from each other. The only concession is that the one causes the other, as in “The Rolling Wave” defined and described in my Wireless World article in July 1979.               Ivor Catt 2apr02

 

3

 Try the very basic mathematical relationship (allowing for lack of math
symbols in plain ASCII):

sin^2 (X) + cos^2 (X) = 1

Remember that regardless of the dispute we may have regarding the phase
relationship between E and H waves, they are still on planes oriented at
right angles to each other. We are dealing here with vectors at right
angles, and the above relationship applies exactly.

The result of this in my description is a vector of constant energy, and
hence constant length, rotating in a circle around the path of the light
ray as the ray travels along its path.

I note in your page a claim that my description is incorrect. But I didn't
find any explanation as to how the energy of the light ray varies over
time, nor where you think it goes.

I'll put up a counter-argument in the next few days.

Ken Bigelow
Webmaster

Byte-sized education
    |   http://www.play-hookey.com/    over the Internet... 

2

On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Ivor Catt wrote:

> I am intrigued to hear how you make a constant value by combining sin and cos somehow. Do you add them, or do you multiply them, or do you do something more subtle?
> Ivor Catt
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ivor Catt
> To: webmaster@play-hookey.com
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 8:52 PM
> Subject: your error
>
>
>
1
  Ivor Catt.    Here is an example of the promotion of the false idea that in the TEM wave, E and H are 90 degrees out of phase. Today 1apr02, the first hit on a Google search for "Transverse Electromagnetic Wave" is;
http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/transverse_electromagnetic_wave.html   which begins;
The basic transverse electromagnetic wave, as shown to the left, involves both a varying electric field and a varying magnetic field, appearing at right angles to each other and to the direction of travel of the wave. Note especially that the electric and magnetic fields are not in phase with each other, but are rather 90° out of phase. Most books portray these two components of the total wave as being in phase with each other, but I find myself disagreeing with that interpretation, based on three fundamental laws of physics:
1. Energy is neither created nor destroyed.
The total energy in the waveform must remain constant at all times. Any deviation from this condition constitutes a violation of this law.
If the two component waves are asssumed to be in phase with each other, then the total energy of the wave varies from some maximum value to zero, and then back up to the maximum value. I invite anyone to tell me where the energy goes when it is not part of the wave, and why it returns to the wave once it is all gone.

"All pages on
www.play-hookey.com copyright © 1996, 2000-2002 by Ken Bigelow
Please address queries and suggestions to:
webmaster@play-hookey.com   "
        I sent him the comment above today 1apr02. Ivor Catt
>
>
> Hookey needs to see my http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm        Ivor Catt

 

 

5

Bigelow sticks to his idea that E and H are out of phase in a TEM Wave. Where did he get it from?

Ivor Catt        2apr02

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Webmaster <webboss@play-hookey.com>

To: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>

Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 4:24 PM

Subject: Re: Fw: your error

 

OK, Ivor,

My response is in place, as part of the same TEM page you referenced
earlier. [See below at
6]

If you'd care to refute me, I'd love to see it. But, as I state on the
page, please include the mathematics you claim will correctly apply to a
TEM wave, and be sure to account for any change in total energy in the
waveform.

In the page you pointed to, you simply made a bare and unsupported claim
that I was wrong. Further argument by you must be supported by background
math and descriptions, or I'll have to assume that you have no such
background for your position.

It's your move. . .

Ken Bigelow
Webmaster

Byte-sized education    |   http://www.play-hookey.com/
over the Internet...  

 

6

[Addition to http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/transverse_electromagnetic_wave.html  on 2apr02]

On April 1, 2002, I received an e-mail from Ivor Catt, claiming that my statement of Law #1 above is faulty. He pointed me to his comments on this page, http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm, which also claims that my reasoning is faulty. Now, in view of the date of Mr. Catt's e-mail, this may all just be an April Fool's joke. However, as it is the only challenge I have received so far, I'll give it a serious response.

In his e-mail, Mr. Catt asked me for the mathematical basis of my claim that two quadrature sine waves (basically a sine wave and a cosine wave) operating normally (at right angles) to each other can possibly be combined to give a constant value. My reply is the basic trigonometric relationship:

sin˛ x + cos˛ x = 1

Based on this known relationship, we can use vector addition of the electric (E) field and the magnetic (H) field at any instant in time to calculate the total energy of the wave at that instant. Such vector addition includes the trigonometric relationship quoted here, and will result in an energy vector of constant length, rotating around the axis of the direction of travel of the light wave as that wave progresses.

The page I pointed to above also includes the following statement attributed to Mr. Catt:

Because the differential of sin is cos and the differential of cos is minus sin, half-witted mathematicians have invaded the physics of the TEM wave and imposed a spurious story that E causes H causes E. Since sin, cos and -sin are 90 degrees out of phase, part of their phoney baggage is to imply that E and H are 90 degrees out of phase. (See my article in Wireless World in March 1980.) Because the sin wave is amenable to mathematical high jinks, another part of their baggage is to imply that a TEM wave is sinusoidal. It's time we cleaned the claptrap out of electromagnetic theory.

Ivor Catt, Wireless World, feb84.

The thing is, mathematics is specifically designed and intended to be a quantitatively descriptive language. The 90° phase relationship between voltage (which generates the electric field) and current (which generates the magnetic field) in a transmission line or antenna [Ah. How did an antenna suddenly creep in? – I.C.] is measurable and demonstrable. Of course, it is possible to misuse mathematics in many ways, but it must also be possible to correctly describe a TEM wave mathematically. I note that Mr. Catt doesn't actually state that math has no place in such a description, but that does seem to be the implication in the above quoted paragraph.

The same paragraph also seems to imply that Mr. Catt believes a TEM wave is not sinusoidal. [A TEM wave might be sinusoidal. However, Oliver Heaviside developed the Telegraph Equation for the TEM Wave. His Morse pulses, which he sent down the coax between Newcastle and Denmark, were square, not sinusoidal. They were not periodic **, because the sequence of words contained in the Morse kept changing. It was not a continuous repetition of the same message. – IC.] Now, the sine waveform is the only waveform in nature that exists entirely at a single frequency. Any finite periodic function [How did this idea of limiting to periodic functions slip in here? See ** above. – IC.] of any other shape can be represented by the Fourier Series as a set of sine and cosine waves in a harmonic relationship to each other and to the basic frequency of the non-sinusoidal waveform.

The page in question lists a number of publications and opinions, some older, some more recent. We could go back through them and argue their merits forever without getting anywhere. What that page does not do is state specifically what Mr. Catt believes to be true regarding the structure of the TEM wave [see *** below - IC]. He also offered no description of his viewpoint in his e-mail to me; only the bare and unsupported statement that my view (according to him, at least) is faulty. [For the record, I refer to his false statement (which he calls a view) that E and H are 90 degrees out of phase in a TEM wave. *** My writings are littered with the true statement (not a view), which is that in a TEM Wave, E and H are in phase. – IC.] Sorry, Ivor, but that's not good enough.

I therefore invite Mr. Catt to respond with more detailed information, without simply referring us all to other publications in the midst of the debate. [The “more detailed information” is that in a TEM Wave, E and H are in phase. It is a serious error, not simply another view, to state otherwise. – IC.] In order for me to consider it seriously, however, I'll need two basic specifications: the specific mathematics that Mr. Catt believes correctly describe the structure of the TEM wave; and (if his equations don't show constant total energy in the wave throughout the full cycle) a clear description of where the energy goes when it isn't in the wave, and how and why it returns to the wave when it returns. If Mr. Catt believes that the TEM wave is non-sinusoidal, I'd also like to see what he believes the waveform to be, and why. Again, a mathematical description would be helpful, and make his position that much more meaningful. [I raised the problem that the Bigelow website has a false statement about the relative phase of E and H in a TEM Wave. My maths, my theories, and my opinions have nothing to do with the issue, which is my statement that Big is wrong over the relative phases of E and H in a TEM Wave. The damage Big does by making such a false statement has nothing to do with any good or damage I might do with my theories. Big has to correct the error in his website.    Ivor Catt  2apr02.]

***************************************

Big’s statement below (as it is the only challenge I have received so far “) confirms the assertion in the title of my web page  http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm  ; “The TEM Wave, A Lost Concept”. He says nobody else has tried to correct him. Perhaps nobody else knows any e-m theory any more. Ivor Catt  2apr02

[Addition to http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/transverse_electromagnetic_wave.html  on 2apr02]

On April 1, 2002, I received an e-mail from Ivor Catt, claiming that my statement of Law #1 above is faulty. He pointed me to his comments on this page, http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm, which also claims that my reasoning is faulty. Now, in view of the date of Mr. Catt's e-mail, this may all just be an April Fool's joke. However, as it is the only challenge I have received so far, I'll give it a serious response.

7

Ken Bigelow,
You have wrongly stated that the E and H fields in a TEM wave are 90 degrees
out of phase. You must correct that. Your error has nothing to do with my maths.
I have added much comment at my website address 2806.
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2806.htm
Keep digging, if you insist. It's fun watching.
Ivor Catt        2apr02         9pm
……………………………………………………………………………………
----- Original Message -----
From: Webmaster <webboss@play-hookey.com>
To: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: your error

OK, Ivor,

My response is in place, as part of the same TEM page you referenced
earlier.

If you'd care to refute me, I'd love to see it. But, as I state on the
page, please include the mathematics you claim will correctly apply to a
TEM wave, and be sure to account for any change in total energy in the
waveform.

In the page you pointed to, you simply made a bare and unsupported claim
that I was wrong. Further argument by you must be supported by background
math and descriptions, or I'll have to assume that you have no such
background for your position.

It's your move. . .

Ken Bigelow
Webmaster

Byte-sized education    |   http://www.play-hookey.com/
over the Internet...    |

On Mon, 1 Apr 2002, Ivor Catt wrote:

> I am intrigued to hear how you make a constant value by combining sin and
cos somehow. Do you add them, or do you multiply them, or do you do
something more subtle?
> Ivor Catt
>

8

late 2apr02

Ivor Catt,

I see no point in digging further. It's very easy to make a bald statement
of any kind. It proves nothing. And quite frankly, I haven't seen _any_
math from you. Without it, your claim has no basis in science. Your
failure to state a mathematical basis for your claim suggests, quite
frankly, that you have none. If you have any mathmatical basis for your
statement, state it. Until you do, I must assume you are talking through
you hat, as it were. I have no need to expend further effort on this until
you can back up your claim with verifiable mathematics that are in accord
with the known laws of physics.

Ken Bigelow
Webmaster

Byte-sized education    |   http://www.play-hookey.com/
over the Internet...    |

On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Ivor Catt wrote:

> Ken Bigelow,
> You have wrongly stated that the E and H fields in a TEM wave are 90 degrees
> out of phase. You must correct that. Your error has nothing to do with my
> maths.
> I have added much comment at my website address 2806.
> http://www.ivorcatt.com/2806.htm
> Keep digging, if you insist. It's fun watching.
> Ivor Catt        2apr02

 

9

To Dr. Arnold Lynch FIEE

 

Arnold, Things have come to a pretty pass. I have found (see  http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm     ) that modern text books lack proper discussion of the TEM Wave. This character Mr. Big says the E field and the H field in a TEM wave are 90 degrees out of phase. He sticks to his guns. The trouble is, he is the first hit on a Google search of the www when searching for “TEM Wave”. Thus, a lecturer who is assigned to lecture on electromagnetism, who finds no rigorous information on TEM Waves (for instance information on the relative phase of E and H) in today’s text books, and then in desperation goes to the www, will get misinformation from Mr. Big. He is then bound to teach his students wrongly.

 

Please send a letter to me about the relative phases of E and H in a TEM wave, and I will forward it to Mr. Big. Also, please do what you can to get the IEE to look into this problem, that the very basics of electromagnetic theory are disappearing in a cloud of misinformation, partly in today’s shoddy text books, and partly in the www. It is much worse than the problem over “The Catt Anomaly”. The relative phasing of E and H in a TEM Wave is absolutely fundamental. The confusion will spread to light, of course. All we seem to have today (as text book writers and pundits like Big) is a bunch of monkeys playing with maths like real monkeys might play on a typewriter.

Ivor Catt.       3apr02.

121 Westfields, St. Albans

AL3 4JR, England

 

Cc Chief Executive, IEE,

Savoy Place, Strand, London.

 

Cc Chief Executive, IEEE,

345 East 47th St.,

New York, N.Y. 10017 - 2394H, who then goes to the w

 

 

10

Mr Big digs deeper. Found on the website   http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/tem_argument.html   which is reached from the faulty website  http://www.play-hookey.com/optics/transverse_electromagnetic_wave.html  on 8apr02;

 

[Added by Mr Big to his website] From me:
 
Here are reasons #2 and #3 for questioning Mr. Catt's academic credentials. A TEM wave does not travel down a coaxial cable. (Well, yes, if the frequency is high enough into the microwave band, a TEM wave can treat the coax cable as a circular waveguide, but that doesn't apply here.) The coax cable carries an electrical signal. In the early Telegraph systems in the US, each connection was dc-powered, and the connection was simply interrupted by the operator at one end via the telegraph key, so the operator at the other end could hear the reaction of an electromagnet at the other end. An ac power source is also possible, but again the basic nature of the telegraph is to interrupt power according to the Morse code. The interruptions form an irregular rectangular wave, surely, but they do not in any way constitute a TEM wave.

 

Now Mr Big says a coax does not support a TEM Wave! What next?       Ivor Catt     8apr02

 

Update, 8mar04. The gaffe

Here are reasons #2 and #3 for questioning Mr. Catt's academic credentials. A TEM wave does not travel down a coaxial cable.

above has now been removed from Mr. Small’s website. He also says he has moved forward from “the argument” as to the relative phase of E and H in a TEM wave. What a shame Big is not big enough to tell us that he was wrong, but rather dumps a fog onto the matter re coax, particularly since he attacked my competence. Someone must have been incompetent. Who was it? How long will he continue to mislead readers of his website as to the relative phase of E and H in a TEM Wave?     I Catt   8mar04

 

http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Teaching/Courses/EFT/transmission/html/TEMWave.html

.... The wave below is a TEM wave, the sort you might find in a coax cable from a signal generator to an oscilloscope. ….

 

 

10a

Neil Gershenfeld, The Physics of Information Technology, pub. CUP 2000, p91; “…. Because in a hollow conductor the boundary is an equipotantial, Laplace’s equation implies that the field must vanish everywhere in the interior, therefore a TEM wave cannot be supported. Adding another conductor, such as the center (sic; NG is at MIT) in a coaxial cable, makes a TEM solution possible.” (Does this make Big Small? Hard to tell, when a maths worshipper confronts a maths pusher. Lucky Laplace was born, making it possible to send TEM waves down coax. – IC)

 

11

It is a shame that Mr. Big self-destructed by committing a bigger gaffe (than saying that E and H are out of phase in a TEM Wave.) He now says that a coaxial cable cannot support a TEM Wave. With this, he puts himself out of court.

There is a reason for Big’s confusion, and it is not his fault. We get a hint of the reason from Big, who says that nobody else has contradicted his first error, re TEM Wave. See

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm , which says that the TEM Wave is a lost concept. This is because text books of at least the last twenty years have not taught it intelligibly, if at all. (The text books have been rotten for so long that today’s lecturer has had no access to proper information.) The same applies to coaxial cable, or perhaps the more fundamental teaching which would lead to Mr. Big being able to think clearly about coax. Thus, the gaffes on Big’s website are more important than Big, and should be retained, as evidence that to a large degree, the whole of electromagnetic has become a lost art. This is disastrous. See Einstein in ed. Schilpp, Albert Einstein, Phiosopher-Scientist, pub. Library of Living Philosophers 1949, p62; “The special theory of relativity owes its origin to Maxwell’s equations of the electromagnetic field.” Thus, loss of e-m theory leads to further collateral losses.

Notice that Big keeps talking about the maths in e-m theory, as if maths were the core of the subject. The capture of e-m theory by mathematicians with no physical grasp is certainly one of the reasons why e-m has become a lost art.    http://www.ivorcatt.com/em_test04.htm       Ivor Catt     8apr02

 

12

Big says; “New! I've had a challenge to this statement. To avoid cluttering up this page with the back-and-forth argument, I've moved my side of this to this page. If anyone else wants to join the discussion, please feel free to do so. You can e-mail me at webmaster@play-hookey.com, and I will insert meaningful comments and theories into the page. By "meaningful," I mean that you must state a specific position of the question (Are the electric and magnetic waves in phase? In quadrature? Some other relationship?), you must provide the specific mathematical expressions that describe the electromagnetic wave as you claim it to be, and (if your claimed relationship doesn't show a mathematically verifiable constant energy in the wave at all instants in time) you must explain both where the energy goes when not part of the waveform, and why it comes back to the waveform. I'm perfectly willing to support and display a meaningful dialog. If you can prove your position mathematically, I may even adopt it. If you don't even try, I'll ignore your claims as baseless.”   www.ivorcatt.com/2613.htm

 

This is the smoking gun which demonstrates Big’s confusion; ) ”… you must explain both where the energy goes when not part of the waveform, and why it comes back to the waveform”.   I.C. 13may02

 

An entrenched confusion.

 

http://www.electrogravity.com/index3.html

“After some thought on the matter (years previous to your question in the first part above), the H field (due to Maxwell's theory) is created by the changing E field and visa-versa. They are coincidentally created by each other simultaneously after leaving the antenna proper.”

 

Even when they know that E and H are in phase, these guys will not let go of causality. The Lenz’s Law – type minus sign gets to them.  Of course, they don’t know that the minus sign is an artefact resulting from a classic error in the sign of time, see my article “The Hidden Message in Maxwell’s Equations”, Electronics & Wireless World nov85. Available on my website at   http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm  .  http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Ekkehard_Friebe/Catt-85a.htm

  Ivor Catt  2apr02

 

“The History of Displacement Current”, Wireless World march79, at http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/z014.htm , leads into “The Heaviside Signal” http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm  , Wireless World july79, which discusses these gentlemen’s faulty “rolling wave” view of the TEM Wave, and moves on to “The Heaviside Signal”, which Heaviside called “A slab of Energy Current”. E and H coexist, and do not cause each other.   Ivor Catt   2apr02

 

Academic apes

 

The Heaviside Signal

__________________________________________________________________

 

Malcolm Sargent Festival Choir