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