sjw40364 wrote:Is it a reflected wave or a cause from introducing a probe into the field, a reflection of the force off of the probe? By introducing an outside source to the field you are changing the field by that very action.
Generally yes. Don't consider this a any sort of a 'correction' but your summary is more on point and I would simply like to play with it by re-wording it: Your last sentence would actually be something along the lines of 'By introducing another 'load' or impediment to the transmission of the field you are introducing variations to the impedance characteristics of the original field that, upon superimposing by reflection may be qualified, or quantified, as the actions of "charge", "voltage", "current" etc by that very action.
This, I think, is all that Ivor Catt is saying and it is why he points to the existence of the "reference medium" Z
0. From these variations of "superimposing" reflection characteristics causing impedance mismatches to 'overlap' each other the 'features' of "electricity are given different names, qualities, and quantificaitons. But, they all stem from these variations of the original "field energy." One is really just chronicling variations of 'field activities.'
This is precisely what Forrest theorized on as regarding the impedance mismatch whether from some condition on the transmission line “open”, “short”, faults etc and/or as relates the presence of the interaction of an original incident TEM Energy Current with a coil in a meter. Where the “pseudo science” comes in I don’t know as a paper by L. V. Bewley was cited. Here is a copy without the Scibd interface:
LV Bewley - Travelling Waves on Transmission Systems - 1933
In Bewley’s paper one can see that an apparatus, the transition network itself in this case, can induce reflected waves which then necessarily cross (interact with) the waves incident (incoming) on the wire (I say on the wire because the wire can’t ‘wave’). “Currents will flow into the network” apparatus and then “... transmitted waves will move out on the outgoing lines and reflected waves will start back on the incoming lines” as covered earlier causing an increase in the perception of "voltage."
Also, this is a well established and one can head over to Charles Proteus Steinmetz and note on page 227 that:
When traveling wave and stationary waves occur simultaneously, very often the traveling wave precedes the stationary wave.
The phenomena may start with a traveling wave or impulse, and this, by reflection at the ends of the circuit, and combination of the reflected waves and the main waves, gradually changes to a stationary wave. In this case, the traveling wave has the same frequency as the stationary wave resulting from it. In fig 47 is shown the reproduction of an oscillogram of the formation of a stationary oscillation in a transmission line by the repeated reflection from the ends of the line of a single impulse caused by short circuiting the energized line at the open end. –
Lectures on Electrical Engineering, Volume 2 By Charles Proteus Steinmetz
Or, one can consider more modern iterations:
The following illustration shows how a triangle-shaped incident waveform turns into a mirror-image reflectionupon reaching the line's unterminated end. The transmission line in this illustrative sequence is shown as a single, thick line rather than a pair of wires, for simplicity's sake. The incident wave is shown traveling from left to right, while the reflected wave travels from right to left:
Standing waves and Resonance
The point, as relates the question “What is Electricity”, in considering and contrasting the work of others as opposed to simply broadcasting such overly vague consensus driven cul-de-sac statement such as “Electricity is Charge” is to delve deeper into not only the ‘accepted interpretations’ of measurement and experiment but to also contrast these with other experimental evidences which may speak to transient phenomena that have all but been eliminated by ‘filtering’ from the variety of activities culled ‘neath the term “Electricity.”
In this case, and as of late specifically, the ‘by products’ that may occur as a result of the superposition of incident and reflected waves in addition to the appearance of “standing waves” are ripe for discussion consider the opening question of this thread. All of which by their very nature as “waves” must necessarily have their existence in a dielectric-like ‘meduim’ surrounding a wire since wire itself; doesn’t ‘wave’. Only the amorphous characteristics or ‘quality’ of spatial “energy” can do that.
All that is being offered here are other interpretive perspectives or frameworks garnered from First Principles directly from experiment. Ivor Catt, for example, needed to reexamine the concepts responsible for the origin of the idea of “charge” and/or “voltage” owing to the result of experiment and testing. There is nothing wrong with reexamining the implications of the very existence of the impedance of “free space” aka the “reference medium” Z
0[377] and to posit that owing to said impedance mismatch induced by reflective interaction i.e. “superimposition” of TEM Energy Current with reflections of different impedance characteristics that ‘secondary’ quantifications (or read actual secondary quanta) might be produced and measured as ‘cross products’, by products etc. of not only secondary but tertiary reflections as well - and subsequently labeled as “charge” or “voltage.”
Lastly, insofar as being “entities that act” what exactly is Planck ’s constant supposed to represent? – the smallest “energy quanta” i.e. IT ACTS to convey, transmit, and itself BE “energy.” Considering that the definition of “energy” is the ‘capacity to do work’ i.e. ACT-ion, how would this be an affront against credulity??
To then broadly assert that “Electricity is Charge” without such an interdisciplinary approach is simply absurd when considering the vast scope that the term electricity encompasses. Now, one can hopefully understand the ‘knowledge filters’ that prevented the contradictory contemporaries of Ivor Catt (he is not alone) from peeking their heads from beneath the umbrellas of their ‘comfort zones’. How dare anyone reexamine and/or reinterpret the interpretive framework of “scientific” gnosis and all of its wonders.
Pft, I do it with glee!! Its called First Principles and the day this dies in "science" is the day "science" dies and mere automatons run about regurgitating vague postulates as though they are self-evident facts.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
