What is electricity?

[Sparky]

N theory seems to be the foundation of plasma theory.

How does H or C theory relate to plasma? Should we look at plasma birkeland currents as the conductor, with current energy flowing outside them? Or as coax/waveguides, with current energy flowing within the double layers?...

[seasmith]

12-08-11

Here is correspondence between Ivor Catt and seasmith, as per request of I Catt:

-----Original Message----- From: ivorcatt@alexandria89.etcserver.com
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 1:39 PM
To: ivor@ivorcatt.com
Subject: Contacting Ivor from webform

Name:
seasmith
Email:
xxxxxxx

Comments:
Dec 08, 2011

Dear Ivor,
Thank you for the NPP talk last week. Your work, just recently come to light [here], is causing a lot of folks to stop and think around here (Thunderbolts Forum);
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 404#p60404

Hope you are feeling well.
Sincere best regards,
C. Smith


>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<>>>><<<<><>><><<<<>>>><

Seasmith,
Please upload all of below into the place where I got it from - your blog or something Thunderbolts Forum.
Ivor Catt

"AC and DC are terms that refer to electric current, not to energy current, which 'always' flows in both directions." - Here Forrest went a little adrift, which he very rarely does. I think he will confirm that he went a little adrift.

"Yes. I think Catt might say that the ion flow in battery, as Jarva says, is not the same as the induced propagation of the Heaviside Signal that reaches the light bulb. He does not repudiate Faraday like he does Maxwell." - seasmith
Catt does repudiate Faraday. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/images/7877.jpg

" Thank you for the NPP talk last week. Your work, just recently come to light, is causing a lot of folks to stop and think around here (Thunderbolts Forum);" This is just not good enough. In particular, I have been near the top of the Google hits for "self resonant frequency". I am no. 8 hit for Google's "displacement current".

"I didn't find anything that did not make sense or that contradicted Heaviside" - seasmith. Heaviside, Theory H said "we reverse this. The field causes the current. Catt went further,contradicting Heaviside with Theory C; "There is no electric current." In my book I quote Heaviside; "By the way; is there any such thing as an electric current? .... .... " That is the nearest he got to repudiating electric current between battery and lamp. "C stands for Catt. Catt realised that when Theory H reversed the causality between electric current and field, it led to the disappearance of the need for current and charge. This excision resolves the Catt Anomaly (p31). p12" - Sparky quoting Catt

"C theory: Stationary electric and magnetic fields do not exist. Fields travelling at other than the speed of light do not exist." - Sparky quoting Catt
"What about a permanent magnet? " - Sparky.
In his talk, Catt said his theories did not ever mention the permanent magnet. [This is because after one or two minor brushes with permanent magnets in the 1960s - (1) magnetic amplifiers; magnetic core memories for which Catt did some design, (2) general work by Catt designing power supplies and (3) the magnetic toroid based logic units in his first digital computer which he partly designed (a tiny part,), the permanent magnet disappeared from his discipline, which was the digital computer for the next 50 years, generally lacking permanent or soft iron magnets.] It is difficult to make one's theoretical framework embrace something about which one knows little.

The following is good. - IC

by Jarvamundo » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:56 pm

H and C just says the chemical release of energy is 1st delivered into the dielectric, then sinks into the conductor. The "current" "in the conductor" is a secondary artifact of this analysis. It does not 'exist' per se, but is a mathematical descriptor or quantification of the primary action in the field bound by the conductors (reflectors), "an axial sum" if you like.

So yes, the ions don't participate directly in the conductor, but they do participate in the batteries establishment of the "energy wave" or stress in the dielectric.

In my view it's best to look at "the field" as stresses in a physically existant medium; Dielectric or aether.... but it is much harder to conceptually picture in a vacuum, or nothingness... so don't.... they (Maxwell, Heaviside, etc) didn't, so why do you have to.

Re Sparky: On the chemical scale there may very well be some capacitor action or energy wave trapping event, or time division. This may also apply to what we call matter. Fun ideas to explore. But distinction between engineerable philosophy and 'ideas' to be weighted appropriately.
[end of correspondence]
<>>>>><<<<<<>>>>><><><><><<><><<<<<<>>>>>><<><>>>>>>><>

Jarvamundo gets an A

s

[jjohnson]

— and he deserves an A: he works hard, reads a lot and thinks critically. Grinding might be old fashioned, but it is a reliable way of getting to the bottom of things. No Heaviside in Manga novels, yet, although there are a few that tiptoe into scientific stuff a little.

Jim

[seasmith]

Catt does repudiate Faraday.
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/images/7877.jpg

In a way (see link above).
Note in drawing, that the outer loop with voltmeter has no ground.
A flowmeter in a closed of loop of pipe will also register zero.

"Catt went further,contradicting Heaviside with Theory C; "There is no electric current."

I Catt

“The End of Electric Charge and Electric Current as we know them”

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/


The second quote would be more precise imo. "Electric" has no definition, as 20-some pages of this thread have illustrated. "Current" merely refers to a Rate of change.
"Charge" , in whatever units of energy expressed and as Catt amply illustrates, is simply an inherent tensegrity of space;
and may be elicited or obstructed by EM 'circuits', but not created by them.

Sometimes it seems semantics can be as big an obfuscation as fancy mathematics.

[jacmac]

Sorry to stick this in here, but I could use a bit of basic conceptual help.
after several years of EU reading I am still a bit unsure about the magnetic field.

Pictures showing the "right hand rule" show the field B as concentric circles(lines) with arrows pointing in the direction of the right hand fingers.
Pictures of a field associated with a permanent magnet show "field lines" flowing from each pole to the other basically in ever larger ellipse like shapes.

My guess is that these lines are not the same thing.

My guess is that if a picture of a permanent magnet's field lines were to be conceptually cut in half by an imaginary plane perpendicular to the line from the north pole to the south pole one would get the concentric circles of the "magnetic field" on that plane.

Is this correct? I don't wish to change the subject.

Thanks,

Jack

[seasmith]

Jarvamundo gets an A

s

Re: What is electricity?
by jjohnson » Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:07 pm

— and he deserves an A:

jj,

For once, wasn't being merely acerbic. I very much admire Jarv's work ethic and hard-gained body of knowledge.
(and his tutoring of Sparky)

[seasmith]

mjv1121 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:28 am

This is what I am interested in. The clue is in the name - physically - take away the "ally" and add an "s" = physics.

The E field and the B field are physical entities. These physical fields are only ever associated with matter (i.e. electrons, protons and atoms). So the EM field is generated by something the matter is doing. Clearly, if the fields are physical, which they must be, and if the fields are not made of electrons and protons, then they must consist of another type of physical material, another type of matter, which we may broadly refer to as aether. Therefore, we are reduced to two possibilities:
1) the fields are emitted by matter - emitted by the particles we refer to as charge carriers - electrons and protons are emitting aether particles which presents to us as EM fields.
2) the activity of the electrons and protons organises the aether (which in this case must be relatively static) to present to us as EM fields.

mjv,

I would like to apologize if the past couple pages have been a bit of a highjacking.
It's just that, as kiwi reminded us, dielectric seems the big dog in our EM/ES realm, and anyway, its oracle's fault...
s

[Forrest Bishop]

I went through this thread back to Dec 3 and will attempt to address some of the questions and issues brought up.

re: AC, attempt at clarification
"AC and DC are terms that refer to electric current, not to energy current, which 'always' flows in both directions."-FB
" - Here Forrest went a little adrift, which he very rarely does. I think he
will confirm that he went a little adrift"-IC, Dec 8, 2011

“Adrift in the sense that I shorthanded what I meant to say.
AC = Alternating Electric Current
If Electric Current does not exist then AC does not exist.
AC is the term that is adrift as it refers to the non-existent.
Therefore, what is measured and then called AC must be something else.
We say that "something else" is a collection of TEM waves of various
polarities, sometimes terminating positive on the upper wire, other times
terminating negative direction on the upper wire, rhythmically in the case
of household electricity, etc. In addition to reversing polarity, the Energy
Currents are in general reciprocating back and forth between load and
source, except in the special case of perfectly-matched load and perfect
impedance geometry. (That's why "always" was in single parentheses.) In the
general case there is partial "cancellation", i.e. concealment, of the
force-generating overlap (should be stated other way around, don't have
time). I didn't have the wherewithal to step though all that- and all the
things behind it- on a blog posting, hence the abbreviation.

I supposed we'd called it AEC, for Alternating Energy Current, but that is a
sloppy term as it misses the reciprocating-partly-concealing aspect.”-FB, Dec 8, 2011

I fully agree.-IC
=========

re: http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/THEORY_ ... ATIONS.htm
just at the end when they showed the animation of the TEM reversing at the 'short' at end of transmission line/capacitor circuit.- seasmith
Yeah this part of the animation was a bit misleading. The capacitor is/should be an open-circuit transmission line. Ivor briefly mentioned this, but yes it can be difficult to pickup from a lecture like that, he only mentioned in passing.- Jarvamundo, Dec 4, 2011
Jarva, what do you find misleading or unclear about the animations? I’ll be adding to these, so customer feedback is most welcome! The animations are based on conventional transmission line theory, a spur line off of mainstream electrodynamics. We’re following that to its logical conclusion. The statement “electric current does not exist” is one part.
History. Heaviside pioneered some of this to be sure, and either reached or came close to reaching some of our conclusions. A century and more ago, statements like “the energy enters the light bulb or resistor sideways, from the space around the wires” were mainstream.
===========

re: permanent magnets, magnetic fields, Grand Field Theories
We, Ivor Catt and followers, claim that there is no such thing as a static field. No electrostatic field, no magnetostatic field. Therefore, all attempts at constructing a Unified Field Theory have failed because the initial assumption was in error. The “static fields” that we imagine we are measuring with our instruments- compass needles, gold leaves, moving coils and the rest- are illusory constructs made up of counter-propagating TEM waves. There are two primary ways in with these equal-and-opposite TEM waves can “cancel” or “conceal” each other. Either the “electric field” components are concealed or the “magnetic field” components are concealed. I’m using “concealed” rather than “cancelled” as the latter word has a connotation of removal or extinction. (These two ways can be thought of as forming a set of basis vectors for all possible polarization states of the two opposing TEM waves.)
The two most common occurrences of (illusory) static magnetic fields are permanent magnets and electric circuits, inductors, and other such doo dads. (Here mainstream might object, saying ‘we already cover the cases of changing mag field with Faraday, Ampere, etc.’ Our reply, ‘those only purport to cover the effects of changes in the imagined static field, which we’ve shown leads to deep contradictions’.) For the alleged “DC electric circuit” the imagined static magnetic field encircles the two wires, cf animations at url above. For the permanent magnet, we imagine, but have not proven , that the counter-propagating TEM waves are moving in circles whose axes are collinear with the N-S axis.
=============

re: Expanse of TEM Wave Electrodynamics.
Sparky » Wed Dec 07, 2011 8:10 am
I haven't been able to read much, but it hit me that a battery might be considered as a capacitor.
Would this be a correct view within H or C theory?

Hi Sparky,
Yes! (For Catt but I don’t know if it occurred to Heaviside.)
A transmission line is an alternate term for an "electric circuit".
A capacitor is a transmission line.
A diode is a capacitor is a transmission line.
A transistor is a capacitor is a transmission line.
A battery is a capacitor is a transmission line.
A CRT is a capacitor is a transmission line.
A dipole antenna is a capacitor is a transmission line, etc.

1) Lumped elements (R, L, C, etc.) are an approximation at best, whereas real circuits exhibit these quantities “per length”. (Some mainstreamers agree and others chose to ignore this point.)
2) Transmission lines are simply large electric circuits, and whatever can be said about one can be said about the other.
3) Any two conductors in close proximity, regardless of geometry, separated by a medium of less conductivity (a dielectric) act as a capacitor. (This one is actually a mainstream proposition, at least on alternate Tuesdays.)
4) Diodes, transistors, batteries, CRTs, and dipole antennas all act as capacitors, according to the above.
(I don't know how this will be received. Notice that in the CRT, etc. the energy current is traveling at right angles to the electron current. This is why we say Theories Catt et al are not 180 degrees opposed to mainstream electromagnetics, merely 90 degrees opposed.)
5) A transmission line consists of two elongated conductors, and therefore acts like a capacitor.
6) If a transmission line acts a capacitor, then a capacitor also acts like a transmission line.
(This one has been an incredibly difficult sell. It has been turned into a censorship litmus test almost as powerful as The Catt Question.)
7) What can be said about the discharge of capacitors can be said about the behavior of transmission lines and vice versa. (An exception here- the capacitor is generally two-dimensional which add a lot of complications.)
8) Power is not delivered by conventional “current”, but instead by an "energy current" that travels entirely within the dielectric medium. (This was a mainstream view 100+ years ago.)

[Forrest Bishop]

TEM Wave Electrodynamic Universe

I forgot to add a couple tidbits.
A Birkeland Current is capacitor is a transmission line.
A Double Layer is a capacitor is a transmission line.
The Heaviside-to Earth 'fair weather field' is a capacitor is a transmission line.
The Sun's photosphere-to-'Heliopause' is a capacitor is a transmission line.

In all of these constructs counter-propagating TEM Waves, which we call Energy Current, are purported to be moving at right angles to the perceived static electric fields, which they create. For the Sun's perceived electric field, TEM waves- always moving at c- encircle it at all distances within the Solar System.

[Sparky]

Forrest Bishop,

A transmission line is an alternate term for an "electric circuit".
A capacitor is a transmission line.
A diode is a capacitor is a transmission line.
A transistor is a capacitor is a transmission line.
A battery is a capacitor is a transmission line.
A CRT is a capacitor is a transmission line.
A dipole antenna is a capacitor is a transmission line, etc.

I was coming to those conclusions, after looking at some of H and C theories...Thanks for the great post....the plain language, explaining these complicated concepts sure helps. I am slowly "getting it", but dragging N theory, since it is so comfortable, is some of the problem.....Thanks for the link, too...i'll make a special effort to see your video files...


EDIT:

For the permanent magnet, we imagine, but have not proven , that the counter-propagating TEM waves are moving in circles whose axes are collinear with the N-S axis.

This i don't get...

What force propels the waves?

[Jarvamundo]

Jarva, what do you find misleading or unclear about the animations?

This is only in reference to the NPA talk. The talk was about capacitors (open transmission lines), yet the animation was closed line. I'm sure you have another animation where the "E-Field" double upon reflection. Anyways Ivor mentioned this in the talk, it just wasn't picked up in the thread here.

"Catt went further,contradicting Heaviside with Theory C; "There is no electric current."

I'm not sure about this, i'll have to find the reference, but its either in OH_EMvol1 or 3, (I think 1) where Heaviside acknowledges the mathematical entity that is current. and charge? The view also seems pretty consistent with his body of work on "the Maxwellian view" and particularly the Heaviside approach of Applied Mathematical Reasoning (eg his initial paper on the mathematical proof/prediction of the skin effect). It can be inferred from just that paper that "electricity" flows in the medium, not metallic. It's also consistently referred to in books like Gullimans Communication Networks 1930 (Distributed Vs Lumped Parameters) Intro chapters. I guess conceptually i don't really see the 'jump' per se? All seems pretty consistent. But having come from the brief halls of modern electronics classes, i DO see the contrast! So I enjoy and encourage the work!

As gullimen says in his book, the lumped parameters we use are really just only convenient approximations. As soon as the wavelength approaches a fraction of your transmission system, the distributed technique is required. Waveguides and transmission lines. So Catt brings Heaviside to the micro-scale.

A few pages back i gave a reference to LV Bewlety's "Travelling Waves on Transmission Systems" 1930ish see the chapter on "successive reflections" and charging up an open DC line, I've only just started my first read of it, but again the Heaviside interpretation of Maxwell is again the consistent view explored.

I'll try include/message you both the Heaviside quote if i come across it again "current is a mathematical entity" or along those lines. Having studied some of Heaviside, it's why I enjoy your work. The animations are great.

As regards to getting rid of the displacement current, i understand the C interpretation, but Heaviside was not so quick to cast off "displacement". In his EM series he talked of 3 waves of electrification, the electric, the magnetic and the maxwellian TEM wave. Also repeatedly made the distinction between of induction and displacement action of the aether quite often, and formed part of his dynamics and to my senses would be the dominant component of any longitudinal action in a medium. Anyways, "i get it" (C interp), just a little cautious of casting off Heaviside or Maxwell.... more reading required.

All the best,

[webolife]

This has been an excellent shift in the labyrinthian paradigm scramble of this thread.
I'd like to hear more from Forrest about the concept of action at a distance [AAAD] as it relates to the Catt electric field in a transmission line. I'm presuming a "vertical" orientation of the TEM field action, but may be missing something here. Also, it appears to me that the electric energy current flows in both directions simultaneously along the transmission line, indicating AAAD with regard to both "ends" of the line, resulting in what seems to be referred to as a standing wave. After getting further clarity about this, I have a follow-up question that I will ask.

[Jarvamundo]

Also, it appears to me that the electric energy current flows in both directions simultaneously along the transmission line

Be careful, Initially there is only one forward TEM wave, or energy current. But at open (or closed) circuit the incidental wave reflects. At this point there can be said to be 2 waves, a forward moving and backwards moving.

This point should be stressed, otherwise it could be implied both forward and backward waves begin at the same time. They do not. A TEM wave does not come from the open end as soon as you connect the battery. The TEM wave comes from the battery, then is reflected by the open end.

The backward wave, is the forward wave. Only that it has been reflected. The reflection sets up the condition that it can be said there are 2 waves, but it is not correct to say they TEM wave 'flow' in 'both' directions 'simultaneously'.

[webolife]

Yet from the standpoints of "source" and "ground", eg. + and - ends of the battery, the TEM runs simultaneously toward the "capacitor"/fixture/short/whatever -- it would appear that C theory has electric energy wave moving from ground toward fixture, and from source toward fixture at exactly the same time... what am I missing?

[Oracle_911]

mjv1121 » Fri Dec 02, 2011 4:28 am

This is what I am interested in. The clue is in the name - physically - take away the "ally" and add an "s" = physics.

The E field and the B field are physical entities. These physical fields are only ever associated with matter (i.e. electrons, protons and atoms). So the EM field is generated by something the matter is doing. Clearly, if the fields are physical, which they must be, and if the fields are not made of electrons and protons, then they must consist of another type of physical material, another type of matter, which we may broadly refer to as aether. Therefore, we are reduced to two possibilities:
1) the fields are emitted by matter - emitted by the particles we refer to as charge carriers - electrons and protons are emitting aether particles which presents to us as EM fields.
2) the activity of the electrons and protons organises the aether (which in this case must be relatively static) to present to us as EM fields.

mjv,

I would like to apologize if the past couple pages have been a bit of a highjacking.
It's just that, as kiwi reminded us, dielectric seems the big dog in our EM/ES realm, and anyway, its oracle's fault...
s

What is my fault?