EEB

 

EEB

 

 

..

Electrolysis/Electroplating/Battery

(Mnemonic EEB)

(This was written decades ago to Luca Turing, then a lecturer at University College, London. He had a one hour programme at peak time on BBC TV about his revolutionary theory on the sense of smell. He is now in the USA. I Catt November 2011)

Electrolysis

Probably the simplest expt. is electrolysis. Water has permittivity 81. Therefore velocity of light is 9 times slower than in vacuo, and a 20nsec pulse will be 2ft wide. Take a piece of plastic guttering, fill with water. immerse deeply two parallel conductors. Send a 20nsec pulse down between them. Under water, it will be 2ft wide. The wires extend off the end, and are perfectly terminated in (say) a 12 ohm resistor. Does electrolysis occur?

(20nsec pulse is generated using 24 TTL 7400 outputs in parallel, at a cost of less than 5 in hardware. At Motorola Phoenix in 1964, I sent pulses down between two Al foil conductors floating in water. Speed was low, which was
why I used water.)

Remove the 12ohm termination so that pulse reflects. Does electrolysis now occur in the last part of the guttering, where returning pulse overlaps transmitted tail end. (This last part simulates conventional electrolysis where energy current is travelling in both directions, giving a physical force between the conductors, which may be necessary to cause electrolysis.

Gradually introduce acid, and see whether electrolysis begins.

Electroplating

Do same expt. as before, but electroplating. Very sensitive weighing of conductors before and after will determine whether plating occurred.

Battery

Repeat expt. with battery situation, taking a very narrow (20nsec) pulse out of the long battery housed in plastic roof guttering. What results in the battery materials?

Before any expt.

Before any expt., canvass world experts in e-m, E, E and B on what they expect to happen, There will be no response. However, after expt., same experts will magically assert that their theory predicted the result!

Problem.

I have nothing to say about what will happen. However, I do not claim a comprehensive theory. Also, I claim that conventional twentieth century information is so hopelessly encrusted with bogus theory that I have virtually no information on EEB from which to construct extensions to my
Theory C in the direction of EEB.

Support/Funding

Possible support is from your existing UCL infrastructure, and also from BBC TV.

How much support/funding can you obtain for me (with or without you) to do these experiments in your lab in UCL on some but not all Tuesdays? First results could probably be obtained quite quickly.

I believe that if the expts. were conducted in my home, they would not 'exist'. UCL credibility would give them more chance, although they still might not 'exist'. In particular, BBC TV has to know about the expts. And approve in advance. Even token funding would lock them in.

Establishment

Ten years ago, I canvassed the Establishment and talked to leading experts on electrolysis/battery etc. The had no comment on other than steady state current into/out of EEB. The Establishment needs to be checked out again on
the faint chance that they now have something to say. This is a necessary precursor to a TV programme. Any Establishment predictions or evasions need to be recorded in advance. This would be done under the aegis of the BBC.

Yours sincerely,

Ivor Catt

cc David Walton, 103 Cromarty,

Ouston, Chester le Street,

Co Durham

Malcolm Davidson, Sony Music,

550 Madison Ave.,

New York, N.Y. 10022,

U.S.A.

The 1988 pages (6 off) include the concept of three regions where the energy current in a battery (/electroplating) may travel; the interface between one electrode and the liquid; the bulk of the liquid; the interface between the liquid and the other electrode. We do not know in which region the energy
current vacillates. Probably in the vanishingly thin interface. This might be checked by Time Domain Reflectometry (TDR), by checking the Zo between the plates, and how it varies with separation between the plates.

Further detailed conjecture is in the 6pp.

 

 

EEB writings to Ernest Cooley et al. sent aug 05

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@''

The following files in my old computer refer to EEB

C\EM\EEB\x2m.doc

C\EM\LETTERS\ti231tur.doc

C\EM\LETTERS\y17aince.doc

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

New name 581

Ivor Catt,

121 Westfields,

St. Albans AL3 4JR,

England

0727 864257

23sep1994

Mr. Luca Turin

7D Macauley Rd.,

London, SW4 0QX

Dear Luca,

You took me through the fact that U.S. and also British R&D fed off advances
taken from the wartime Germans, or

fronted by immigrant Germans, for instance von Braun. I countered with the
very important point that both Tory

(feudal County and ownership of manufacturing industry) and Labour (workers
in manufacturing industry) fight a

phoney political battle while all the time uniting to suppress the third
power base, high technology. This idea is based

on the concept of a series of three power bases, feudal-agricultural;
manufacturing industry; high technology. The

rearguard fought by feudal against manufacturing industry is a good model
for the present rearguard, by a united feudal

and manuf., against the common enemy, hi-tec. My article THE NEW
BUREAUCRACY, Wireless World dec82 (?),

although having faults, is sound in outlining this matter. I want you to
access it. More recently, I have pursued the

parallel in medaeval China, when the mandarins shut down a fast growing
manufacturing industry, even though they

needed its products to fit out their armies. Their own manufacturing
industry posed more of a threat than the Mongol

invaders.

The above leads us to a similar battle for control in an industrial company,
between three further power bases;

owner-entrepreneur; management; technocracy. Again, the earlier battle
illustrates the later. The entrepreneur v

management battle is in Drucker, THE PRACTICE OF MANAGEMENT, when he
discusses how Henry Ford nearly

destroyed the Ford Motor Company. Similarly, today's professional management
will destroy a company rather than

allow exploitation of hi-tec opportunities, for the same reasons as H
Ford's. (However, the theft of a hi-tec option from

the other side of the world does not pose anything like so much political
threat. It reinforces the thesis that the local

technoicrats do not deserve power.)

An allied concept is in Galbraith, THE NEW INDUSTRIAL STATE, when he says
that "Power is where the most

complex decision making is." When the most complex decision making moves
into another area, the previous decision

makers will not relinquish control. They are in a position to obstruct the
new decision making, and they do so. They

will therefore prevent decision making from being influenced by the new
considertaions - in the first battle decisons

could not be allowed to profit from managerial expertese - Ford fired any
manager who made a decision. In the later

battle, today's battle, no technological consideration is allowed to affect
a decision made in hi-tec industry, because the

technology-free management would then lose control.

Today's geurilla war between management and technocracy mirrors the guerilla
war that Henry Ford fought against

his company management. My book COMPUTER WORSHIP pub Pitman 1973 contains a
chapter entitled THE

MANAGEMENT-TECHNOLOGY GUERILLA WAR, where the problem was first disclosed.
It will remain with us

for some time yet.

Allied with these ideas is the idea that a paranoid society will only allow
hi-tec product development which does not

impact usefully on society, because demonstration of usefulness would result
in too much power accruing to the

technocrats. This explains the absurd ultra-hi tec weapons project, which
everyone knows will fail, and which must fail.

Even though a politically safe product because socially useless, technocrats
are not allowed to influence the

specification of these white elephants, like AWACS or TORNADO, because they
might fight for product specification

which could be attained. It is most important that major, already socially
useless, projects fail in order to discredit and

therefore control the technocracy. Poltically, the ideal is to abandon the
local project after greast loss of money, and

then buy in from abroad. The fear that the technocracy, by developing
products etc. which are valuable to society,

would partake of political power, is deeply feared by the technology-free
ruling rump. This is why the development of

medical electronics is obstructed and also feared. It technocrats saved too
many lives, the battle for control would be

lost.

1. The unidirectional project.

A pulse generator delivers a 10nsec pulse (10ft wide in air) down a twisted
pair with Zo = 20ohms. It enters a plastic

gutter full of water, where the Zo remains at 20ohms. The pulse is now going
slower, and is 1 ft wide. It reaches an

open circuit, and reflects back towards the source, where it is terminated
and does not reflect. In the final 6 inches, the

pulse overlaps itself, so a physical force occurs between the two wires.
However, further upstream, since the pulse does

not overlap itself, there is no physical force and therefore perhaps no
electrolysis.

This expt is done with pure water and again with acid in the water.

2. The second unidirectional project.

The source delivers a steady voltage into the same twisted pair, which is
terminated at the end in 20 ohms. This time

there is never a physical force between the wires (= electrodes). Does
electrolysis result? This expt requires no

equipment except a power 20ohm resistor. Only a battery is needed. How does
the amount of electrolysis vary when the

terminating resistor is removed? [Perhaps we reduce the 'battery' (=power
supply) voltage in the second case so that the

voltage between the electrodes remains the same.]

3. The bi-directional project.

The twisted pair enters the gutter as before, but then exits from the water
and continues (with Zo still 20 ohms)

through air towards a second pulse generator and 20 ohm termination. Pulses
are timed to overlap in the middle portion

of the gutter full of water. What is the amount of hydrolysis (= H and O
bubbling off) in this section compared with the

two ends of the guttering?

Energy considerations. When a TEM wave travels down a coax, no power is
dissipated. So there cannot be

elctrolysis. However, the problem is that if a TEM wave reflects, as in
conventional electrolysis, still no power is

dissipated, to there should be no electrolysis, because this would require
input of energy. So the electrolysis in the

conventional situation relates to imperfections in the system - for instance
leakage (G) in the electrolyte, making it not a

perfect dielectric. However, presumably the acid creates the leakage.
Actually, we know it does, that pure water is an

insulator and the acid makes it conduct.

Yours sincerely,

Ivor Catt

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@'

New name 582

Ivor Catt,

121 Westfields,

St. Albans AL3 4JR,

England.

(01727 864257

22feb97

Luca Turin,

7D Macauley Rd.,

London SW4 0QX

Dear Luca,

TV programme on e-m.

TV did the Horizon programme on your theory on smell [BBC2 Horizon 27nov
(?1995?) 8pm]. I try to respond positively to your long term attempt to
interest them in a programme on e-m. In particular, I refer to your request
for the definitive experiment which distinguishes between Theory N and
Theory C.

I have come across 6pp of my writings from 1988, pages 17/8/88/1 thru /6,
and send the originals herewith without taking copies. Please return them
within 6mos.

The idea is to present as part of a TV programme the thesis that
conventional theory has nothing to say about whether a narrow (20nsec) pulse
of current in all three cases EEB (see below) causes the same effect as
steady current. This leads to the idea that contemporary theory validates
experiment achievement, but does not extend beyond it. Thus, contemporary
theory, e.g. about the electron and electric current, is much like the
theory of the Evil Eye; a comprehensive description which stitches together
diverse experience, lacking the classical requirement of a scientific
theory, that of extension(=prediction). Note that the Conventional Wisdom
claims some comprehension of EEB, whereas I do not. Thus they must predict,
not I.

In the EEB experiments, keep close guard on energy, and see whether energy
is lost in the passage of the narrow pulse. Note that a coax. with perfect
conductors will transmit energy (current) without energy loss. So in
principle, we can transmit energy current through EEB baths without loss of
energy, and therefore without the conventional EEB activity (bubbles of O2
etc.). Note also that overlapping (contrapuntal) pulses cause a mechanical
force, whereas one (unidirectional) energy current does not. Physical force
across the dielectric may be essential for EEB activity. (Re the force, see
my book Death of Electric Current p166.)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

New name 583

Ivor Catt,

121 Westfields,

St. Albans AL3 4JR,

England

0727 864257

23sep1994

Mr. Luca Turin
7D Macauley Rd.,
London, SW4 0QX

Dear Luca,

You took me through the fact that U.S. and also British R&D fed off advances
taken from the wartime Germans, or fronted by immigrant Germans, for
instance von Braun. I countered with the very important point that both Tory
(feudal County and ownership of manufacturing industry) and Labour (workers
in manufacturing industry) fight a phoney political battle while all the
time uniting to suppress the third power base, high technology. This idea is
based on the concept of a series of three power bases, feudal-agricultural;
manufacturing industry; high technology. The rearguard fought by feudal
against manufacturing industry is a good model for the present rearguard, by
a united feudal and manuf., against the common enemy, hi-tec. My article THE
NEW BUREAUCRACY, Wireless World dec82 (?), although having faults, is sound
in outlining this matter. I want you to access it. More recently, I have
pursued the parallel in medaeval China, when the mandarins shut down a fast
growing manufacturing industry, even though they needed its products to fit
out their armies. Their own manufacturing industry posed more of a threat
than the Mongol invaders.

The above leads us to a similar battle for control in an industrial company,
between three further power bases; owner-entrepreneur; management;
technocracy. Again, the earlier battle illustrates the later. The
entrepreneur v management battle is in Drucker, THE PRACTICE OF MANAGEMENT,
when he discusses how Henry Ford nearly destroyed the Ford Motor Company.
Similarly, today's professional management will destroy a company rather
than allow exploitation of hi-tec opportunities, for the same reasons as H
Ford's. (However, the theft of a hi-tec option from the other side of the
world does not pose anything like so much political threat. It reinforces
the thesis that the local technoicrats do not deserve power.)

An allied concept is in Galbraith, THE NEW INDUSTRIAL STATE, when he says
that "Power is where the most complex decision making is." When the most
complex decision making moves into another area, the previous decision
makers will not relinquish control. They are in a position to obstruct the
new decision making, and they do so. They will therefore prevent decision
making from being influenced by the new considertaions - in the first battle
decisons could not be allowed to profit from managerial expertese - Ford
fired any manager who made a decision. In the later battle, today's battle,
no technological consideration is allowed to affect a decision made in
hi-tec industry, because the technology-free management would then lose
control.

Today's geurilla war between management and technocracy mirrors the guerilla
war that Henry Ford fought against his company management. My book COMPUTER
WORSHIP pub Pitman 1973 contains a chapter entitled THE
MANAGEMENT-TECHNOLOGY GUERILLA WAR, where the problem was first disclosed.
It will remain with us for some time yet.

Allied with these ideas is the idea that a paranoid society will only allow
hi-tec product development which does not impact usefully on society,
because demonstration of usefulness would result in too much power accruing
to the technocrats. This explains the absurd ultra-hi tec weapons project,
which everyone knows will fail, and which must fail. Even though a
politically safe product because socially useless, technocrats are not
allowed to influence the specification of these white elephants, like AWACS
or TORNADO, because they might fight for product specification which could
be attained. It is most important that major, already socially useless,
projects fail in order to discredit and therefore control the technocracy.
Poltically, the ideal is to abandon the local project after greast loss of
money, and then buy in from abroad. The fear that the technocracy, by
developing products etc. which are valuable to society, would partake of
political power, is deeply feared by the technology-free ruling rump. This
is why the development of medical electronics is obstructed and also feared.
It technocrats saved too many lives, the battle for control would be lost.

1. The unidirectional project.

A pulse generator delivers a 10nsec pulse (10ft wide in air) down a twisted
pair with Zo = 20ohms. It enters a plastic gutter full of water, where the
Zo remains at 20ohms. The pulse is now going slower, and is 1 ft wide. It
reaches an open circuit, and reflects back towards the source, where it is
terminated and does not reflect. In the final 6 inches, the pulse overlaps
itself, so a physical force occurs between the two wires. However, further
upstream, since the pulse does not overlap itself, there is no physical
force and therefore perhaps no electrolysis.

This expt is done with pure water and again with acid in the water.

2. The second unidirectional project.

The source delivers a steady voltage into the same twisted pair, which is
terminated at the end in 20 ohms. This time there is never a physical force
between the wires (= electrodes). Does electrolysis result? This expt
requires no equipment except a power 20ohm resistor. Only a battery is
needed. How does the amount of electrolysis vary when the terminating
resistor is removed? [Perhaps we reduce the 'battery' (=power supply)
voltage in the second case so that the voltage between the electrodes
remains the same.]

3. The bi-directional project.

The twisted pair enters the gutter as before, but then exits from the water
and continues (with Zo still 20 ohms) through air towards a second pulse
generator and 20 ohm termination. Pulses are timed to overlap in the middle
portion of the gutter full of water. What is the amount of hydrolysis (= H
and O bubbling off) in this section compared with the two ends of the
guttering?

Energy considerations. When a TEM wave travels down a coax, no power is
dissipated. So there cannot be elctrolysis. However, the problem is that if
a TEM wave reflects, as in conventional electrolysis, still no power is
dissipated, to there should be no electrolysis, because this would require
input of energy. So the electrolysis in the conventional situation relates
to imperfections in the system - for instance leakage (G) in the
electrolyte, making it not a perfect dielectric. However, presumably the
acid creates the leakage. Actually, we know it does, that pure water is an
insulator and the acid makes it conduct.

Yours sincerely,

Ivor Catt

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

New name 584

Ivor to Andy, 7jan98

Foul by Andy, 28/12/97. You are attacking the OU kindergarten, unfairly. I
quote from you from them; "This simple model of the atom is all that we need
for the purpose of this course." You should aim your fire upmarket.

Please note that the whole process of the EEB electrolysis expt. is
unprecedented in my experience. I do not have a full intellectual grasp of
it. I am glads you are making progress. However, also try to decide what the
result should be from our point of view. I find it very difficult. It could
be approached from the point of view of Conservation of Energy, perhaps.

 

..


.

. .

Le

Letter to those responsible for electromagnetic theory.

Homepage | Electromagnetism1 | Old Website