Discussion of http://www.ivorcatt.com/4_6.htm from http://www.ivorcatt.com/em.htm

 

(From the book.)

“The capacitor is an energy store, and when energy is injected, it enters the capacitor sideways at the point where the two leads are joined to the capacitor. Nothing ever traverses a capacitor from one plate to the other[3]. This is clearly understood in the case of a transmission line. By definition, when a TEM wave travels down a transmission line, Figure 5, nothing travels sideways across the transmission line, or we would not have a transverse electromagnetic wave.”

In contrast with the quote above, Maxwell and later Heaviside thought that electric charge entered the bottom plate of a capacitor down the capacitor’s lead and then instantaneously found itself uniformly spread over the top surface of the bottom plate. (To be more accurate, they did not think this. They just didn’t think about it at all.) Their oversight is enshrined in Bleaney Bleaney’s book and also in Fewkes’s book when they say; “The field between the plates is uniform.” That is the smoking gun; the evidence of an error by Maxell, Heaviside, Bleaney and Fewkes that none of them overtly stated. Generally, oversights are not stated. They have to be deduced, as I am doing here. Technically, it is very difficult to achieve uniform field between the plates, and it is not achieved in Maxwell’s classic thought experiment which led him to postulate Displacement Current, which postulation resulted in all and sundry calling it Maxwell’s leap of genius, summa cum laude. The truth is that when electric charge enters a capacitor plate from the capacitor’s negative lead wire, it then proceeds along the capacitor plate. However, Maxwell did not have the concept of a TEM Wave, so he could not suggest this. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/z001.htm

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/z014.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm  .

Dear Mike Gibson,

I am now sending this to a wider circulation.

My book http://www.ivorcatt.com/em.htm takes you to http://www.ivorcatt.com/4_6.htm  which in turn points to your remarkable work at (gib1) http://www.gibsonridgesoftware.com/physics/two_turn_inductor/tti_derivation.htm   and fabulous work via  http://www.ivorcatt.com/2631.htm  at  (gib2)http://www.gibsonridgesoftware.com/physics/two_turn_inductor/tti_simulation.htm

 

Turning to the first two diagrams in http://www.gibsonridgesoftware.com/physics/two_turn_inductor/tti_derivation.htm , entitled "Two-turn inductor" and "Single turn transformer"; these diagrams are the basis for showing that a two turn inductor is very similar to the one turn transformer.

 

You show how the maths is virtually identical, and also that the maths is voluminous. Whereas (1) Dave Walton solved the capacitor fed from a battery with internal resistance, or from a long transmission line, see http://www.ivorcatt.com/6_5.htm , I think that, many years later, (2) it was I (the written record from the time in my blue book will tell us) who solved the maths for the L-C Oscillator circuit, see  http://www.ivorcatt.com/4_5.htm . Malcolm Davidson was then by my side in GEC Borehamwood when, using a hand calculator, we then notionally connected a steady charged capacitor to a one turn inductor, and watched the resulting waveform. When the capacitor voltage turned, went back up through zero and then came back, showing that we got a sine wave made out of lots of little steps, it was very exciting. We phoned Dave Walton in Newcastle while we were doing it. There was then a long wait because the two turn inductor was too difficult. I had to wait until kid Gibson was thrown out of university on his first degree course to come to stay with me, when (3) Mike Gibson solved the two turn inductor, see http://www.ivorcatt.com/4_6.htm  . Gibson was already brilliant at programming in Basic. He typed in programmes out of his head at the speed that a pianist plays the piano.

 

I pointed out that the two turn inductor was more or less the same as the one turn transformer, see the two diagrams in http://www.gibsonridgesoftware.com/physics/two_turn_inductor/tti_derivation.htm . I planned the following. Catt and Gibson would on the one hand present a transformer paper to the IEE, and on the other hand a paper on the other inductor to the IEEE. (In the event, the IEEE accepted, see http://www.ivorcatt.com/4_6.htm ,  but the IEE rejected***. The transformer paper was never published.) Then wait ten years, and present a third paper, with the collapse into simplicity of the maths which results from entering the secondary of the transformer from the left instead of the right. I withheld this insight from Gibson for some time, and even challenged him to come up with a simplification, which he did not. I then tended to forget about it, although I did tell Mike a few years alter, which, like me, he must have then forgotten. The result was that Mike recently did the excellent work putting the two turn inductor and the more complicated single turn transformer http://www.gibsonridgesoftware.com/physics/two_turn_inductor/tti_derivation.htm onto the www.

 

*** Every single journal in the IEE has always rejected every attempt by Catt to publish on electromagnetism, until Lynch got the History .... section to publish our joint conference paper in 1998, see  http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm  . Apart from that, there has always been a 100% rejection rate by IEE journals for every single paper by Catt on electromagnetism. Rejections starting in around 1970, they continue today at a 100% rejection rate. (Meanwhile, the IEE publishes commentary on Catt's work on WSI. However, they reject every attempt by Catt himself to publish on his WSI work.)

 

A few days ago I emailed Mike to indicate that he had been sucked into unnecessarily complicated work with the one turn transformer. However, now I say that it was not unnecessary. Mike's complicated single turn transformer with output from the difficult (right hand) end is valuable because the observer is more likely to believe it than the trivially easy case of secondary exiting from the left. My position is now that Mike must add the simplistic case, but only as a follow-on from the arduous one he has already done. This comparison will demonstrate how important it is to think very hard about how to structure a problem before solving it. This will be a very useful demonstration for every student studying The New Electromagnetism. (A stripped down version of "Electromagnetism 1" will go on the www, and is intended to be the basis of "The New Electromagnetism", which will replace, rather than articulate onto, what is being taught today. (I would have preferred articluation, but recently I realised that that was impossible. Existing faculty groups teaching e-m have to collapse rather than embrace our stuff, which they are incapable of doing.)

 

 

 

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

 

From: Ivor Catt

To: mikegi

Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 1:50 PM

Subject: one turn xformer

 

I proposed two articles with the same maths; two turn choke for IEEE NY which they published; one turn xformer for IEE London which they rejected.

 

I held back a simplification of the one turn xformer even from you, and finally told you in the nov86 letter, which I have in front of me (date missing).

 

Letter from me to you dated circa nov86

 

If the secondary is entered from the left instead of the right, the mathematics collapses. This is because we feed in an even mode signal and an odd mode signal, the amplitudes cancelling in the secondary and adding in the primary.

 

I usually know that there is an interesting wrinkle on the saga, but I tend to forget what exactly it is. Probably you are the same.

 

This information impacts on the excellent work you did which has a hyperlink from my book "Electromagnetism 1", on the www.

 

I am very keen that you retain what is on the web already, and only make additions on the basis of what I am writing here. This then becomes an excellent demonstration of the importance of structuring a problem as well as possible in order to minimise mathematical clutter.

 

 

To make the matter completely clear, her is a brief quote from my nov86(approx) letter;

 

.... you should enter the xformer secondary from the left rather than from the right.

Instead of introducing a step into the primary and nothing into the secondary, introduce two signals at the same time;

1 A positive 10v step into both primary and secondary   (i.e. even mode input, figure 40 in http://www.ivorcatt.com/em.htm  )

2 A positive 10v step into primary and a negative 10v step into the secondary.   (i.e. odd mode input, figure 39 in http://www.ivorcatt.com/em.htm )

....

My present intent is to write a new, third article, on the simplified xformer, and submit it to a third learned journal.

.....

 

Ivor      9dec02

 

I apologise for periodically forgetting key ideas.

 

Either I migrated from the two turn choke to the one turn transformer first, or I first realised that the way of exciting the two turn choke could be greatly simplified.

 

Today, in my mind, I have four scenarios.

 

1 Complex two turn choke.

 

2 Complex one turn transformer.

 

3 Simple two turn choke.

 

4 Simple one turn transformer.

 

(1) definitely occurred first.

 

(3) may have occurred next, or perhaps (2).

 

(4) may have only occurred to me recently, when I thought I was recalling (3).

 

 

Summary.

 

(1) Take the complex two turn choke, fed by the two input wires.

 

(2) Take the complex one turn transformer, with secondary output to the right.

 

(3) Take the choke, and instead of feeding it via the two input wires, do the following.

Make a break in the shorted pair of wires at the left. Then we can feed in even mode and odd mode, so long as the voltages for the two modes cancel across the break we have just made.

 

(4) The simple one turn transformer is achieved by making the secondary output to the left rather than to the right. We can now feed in even mode and odd mode from the left, so long as the voltages for the even and odd mode cancel at the secondary "input". The principle of superposition tells us that the output will ignore these phoney "inputs".

 

In these ways, we can make the mathematics of both the two turn choke and the one turn transformer collapse. They both reduce to multiple cases of a battery driving thru a source resistor (or via a very long 50ohm transmission line) into a one turn choke, which is a shorted transmission line of hi impedance. This is very similar to our dec78 paper, which is of a battery driving through a source resistor (or via a very long 50 ohm transmission line) into a capacitor, which is an open circuit transmission line of low Zo.

 

Mike, Tell me whether this makes sense to you.

 

You must retain the excellent work on the more complex cases that you have done. Items (3) and (4) must only be additions to what you have uploaded already on to the www.

 

Ivor   16dec02