Fw: LTspice transmission line model

[Franklin Hu]

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Cornelis Verhey <corn...@rushmore.com>
To: Bill.L...@yahoo.com
Cc: Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com>; "Glenn A. Baxter, P.E." <glennb...@aol.com>; Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: LTspice transmission line model

Bill,

It is an electrical engineering design aid that uses equations to simulate the dynamic behavior of electronic components.
I am really more interested in physics than I am what is "politically correct".

If you want a program that is based on the work of Maxwell more directly you will have to understand the equations and algorithms used by a program like Ansoft's Maxwell 3D.
I have used this software too, for the purpose of evaluating the efficiency of new stator and rotor designs for switch reluctance motors.
This is not a program you are going to get for free though, a basic version will run you about $50k
Although I do not understand the mathematics, it uses techniques related to finite element analysis to simulate electromagnetic field behavior in all types of structures.
As it's name implies this tool relates more directly to Maxwell's equations to perform it's simulations.
In addition to the electrical to magnetic field relationships it also takes into account the mass and thermal conductivity of the components in the system.
It can accurately predict field strengths, torques temperatures, eddy currents and overall efficiency of the system in converting electrical energy to mechanical.

Cornelis

On 10/12/2015 10:26 PM, Bill Lucas wrote:

Cornelis,

Thank you.  Does this program reflect the "politically correct" predictions of relativistic Maxwell theory?  I would imagine that it does.

Best regards,

Bill

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Cornelis Verhey <corn...@rushmore.com> wrote:

The LTspice model I put together in June of 2013 is attached.

For reasons of image size the number and size of the capacitors and inductors was limited in the simulation (the parts would be infinitely small in size and infinitely high in number)

Also in an Ideal simulation other properties of the coax would be added (resistance of the copper, transformer coupling of the inductance of the wire, inductive properties of the shield …).

This should be adequate to simulate an approximation of a 2.25 meter cable. (10ns)

 

You should be able to search LTspice on the WEB and download the program appropriate for you operating system.

I would download it from http://www.linear.com/designtools/software/#LTspice

Since they are the originators of the program and it has a library containing may of their electronic components.

 

Once you install it you should just be able to click on the model I sent and it should load automatically.

If it does not open this way use the File menu to brows to an select the model from where you placed it on you system.

 

Click on the running man icon on the menu bar to run the program.

You can use the mouse pointer an click on any point in the circuit to display the voltage at any point.

Or if you place the pointer on top of a part and click it will show you the current through it.

 

The current probe across the inductors will tell you a large part of the story.

Note how as you get closer to the open end the current will flow for a shorter period of time in the wire.

 

Have fun and play with it.

Let me know if you have any questions.

 

 

Circuit Diagram

 

 

Image  with a 150 ohm terminating resistor.

 

Image with a 75 ohm terminating resistor

 

Image with a 37.5 ohm terminating resistor

 

Cornelis

 

 

From: Franklin Hu [mailto:frank...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 5:51 PM
To: Cornelis Verhey
Subject: Re: Catt/Wakefield/Bishop Theory

 

Please send your model

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 27, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Cornelis Verhey <corn...@rushmore.com> wrote:

Franklin

Your road flare example does not account for the inductive chacteristics of the transmission line.  If you really want a good electronic simulation tool to help visualize this download LTspice.  I can provide you with my LTspice model that I put together 2 years ago when I first encounter the group talking about these experiments.  This will allow you to probe and make adjustments to the simulation.

Cornelis

On Sep 27, 2015 10:01 AM, Franklin Hu <frank...@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

I think Al is correctly identifying that there is a kind of a "EM voltage wave" that travels through the coax.

 

I like to think of it as a road flare that is burning from one end. We light it up at one end and it burns brightly all the way to the end, never getting dimmer until it finally runs out of material to burn.

 

I think we are seeing a similar thing in the Wakefield experiment, where electrons are coming off the right end of the coax like a burning flare. As long as there are electrons to be supplied by the line, the line provides what appears to be 8 volts of electron pressure.

 

Despite Harry's objections, I still believe that the reason why it is at 4 volts is due to a voltage divider effect. Harry objects that the coax is not a resistor that is giving off heat, and that is true, but this is a virtual or "characteristic" resistance and not one caused by a loss of heat. But so far as the circuit is concerned, it is seeing an 8 volt battery attached to a 75 ohm resistance, the tap and another 75 ohm resistor as a voltage divider.

 

The use of a 75 ohm value only seems to be done to prevent the creation of reflections which create all kinds of havoc in the signal when a greater or lesser value is used and I think generally only acts as a voltage divider when the impedance of the coax is matched with the resistance.

 

-Franklin

 

---

From: Al McDowell <almc...@earthlink.net>
To: Forrest Bishop <forr...@ix.netcom.com>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; HARRY RICKER <kc...@yahoo.com>; Ivor Catt <ivor...@gmail.com>
Cc: Cornelis Verhey <corn...@rushmore.com>; "Hatch...@JohnDeere.com" <Hatch...@johndeere.com>; "da...@dehilster.com" <da...@dehilster.com>; "eric...@midcoast.com" <eric...@midcoast.com>; "rm...@comcast.net" <rm...@comcast.net>; "nper...@snet.net" <nper...@snet.net>; "the....@comcast.net" <the....@comcast.net>; "frank...@yahoo.com" <frank...@yahoo.com>; "jary...@verizon.net" <jary...@verizon.net>; "siri...@hotmail.com" <siri...@hotmail.com>; "PalA...@GMail.com" <PalA...@gmail.com>; "dgs...@alice.it" <dgs...@alice.it>; "bill.l...@gmail.com" <bill.l...@gmail.com>; "ian....@nsai.ie" <ian....@nsai.ie>; Baxter Glenn <glennb...@aol.com>; "karl.virgi...@gmail.com" <karl.virgi...@gmail.com>; "galilean_ele...@comcast.net" <galilean_ele...@comcast.net>; "rar...@earthlink.net" <rar...@earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2015 7:28 AM
Subject: Catt/Wakefield/Bishop Theory

 

All,

 

Scanning the Ivor Catt and Forrest Bishop references provided by Forrest in the email copied below confirms my view that these experiments and their analysis have uncovered a new form of EM radiation not identified in the conventional mainstream literature. The evidence appears most clearly in the Wakefield experiment involving the initiation of discharge of energy stored in a coaxial cable as a capacitor. Scopes detect voltage steps moving along conductors at nearly light speed, far faster than free electrons could randomly collide to create these steps. The fact that these steps propagate at light speed implies that they are closely related to light and other electromagnetic radiation.

 

Ivor calls the cause of these voltage steps "energy current." However, I^2R energy is not directly involved, and the LC energies only move energy in and out of capacitance and inductance. "Current" is initiated at the time and place of the steps, but the flow of electrons as current does not seem to reflect the cause of the steps. I used the term "EM signal" in my previous email copied at the end of this email, but "signal" is not the right term either. I have been reluctant to use the term "wave," because there is no aparent cause for cycles, frequencies, or wavelengths. 

 

However, this phenomenon is electromagnetic and it travels like a wave. Therefore, I suggest the name "EM voltage wave." My point is that this wave is very much like an "EM radiation wave," a "light wave," or a "radio wave." Voltage waves travel along conductors. Light waves travel as photons without changing their energy as they travel. Radio waves are not packaged as photons and spread out to distribute energy as they travel. All three types of EM radiation travel at the speed of light as modified by the permittivity and permeability of the media they travel through. 

 

Ivor has previously considered the steps to indicate that this "voltage wave" is forever in motion, never static. While these waves are certainly in motion to create the voltage steps, the better explanation for the two-way arrival of the waves to create the steps seems to be caused by reflection of the voltage waves from the ends of the cable. The amount of impedance at the cable end determnes the votage of the steps. A cable terminated with its characteristic impedance will not reflect. A capacitor will charge is steps whose voltage relates to the ratio of the capacitor impedace to total impedance in the circuit. If neither end of a coax cable is terminated with its characteristic impedance, the voltage wave will bounce back and forth through the circuit until the capacitor is charged. 

 

Forrest's article has loads of topics that extend transmission line knowledge well beyond what the mainstream recognizes. The mainstream will continue to fail to recogize this subject, because they cannot explain it by their single concept of the nature of EM radiation, nor by the motion of electrons in conductors. The dissident community needs to recognize what Catt, Wakefield, and Bishop have discovered; recognize that the Catt question has been answered; and move on to develop more detailed understanding of the physical nature of alll three types of EM radiation.

 

Our computers and other electronic devices run primarily on EM voltage waves, only secondarily on electrons. This is important. 

 

My earlier discussion of the Wakefield experiment:

 

The Catt article indicates that the scope traces drop in steps from 8V to 4V and then to zero volts in times that indicate that some unknown kind of "EM signal" travels at nearly the speed of light out to the scope probe 25% of the length of the cable to drop 4V, then 50% of the way to drop 4V at that point, then 75% of the way to drop 4V at that point, then all the way to drop 4V at the end and simultaneously to drop another 4V to zero volts as if the mysterious "EM signal" reflected, then 25% of the way back to drop the 4V to zero at the 75% probe, etc. 

 

If one calculates light speed based on permittivity and permeability for the coax dielectric material, internet sources say that EM signals travel at that speed, which is generally 70-80% of light speed. With this scope trace and signal velocity "evidence," what does it indicate? 

 

For example, the 4V drop at the first probe seems very likely to indicate that at that specific instant and at that specific location along the cable, electrons begin to flow to begin discharging the cable. The textbook explanation for this is that as electrons begin to flow at the switch, they bump into electrons further along the cable, causing the initiation of current to move out the cable. Free electrons in conductors do not move in straight paths along the cable. Without a voltage to create an electric field along the cable, electrons are believed to move randomly and bump into each other. When voltage is applied, there becomes a net flow of current, but the electron motion is doubtless still rather random. This means that for the "EM signal" to move at nearly light speed, the electrons would have to move even faster than light. The speed of electron current flow has been calculated many times and is always found to be only a small fraction of light speed. Therefore, the EM signal is more than simply electron current.

 

The fact that the EM signal speed can be calculated from permittivity and permeability implies very directly that the factors that govern EM signal speed are the same as, or similar to, factors that govern light speed. However, unlike light, there is no reson for EM signals to have cycles, frequencies or wavelengths. This suggests that the "EM signals" that conduct voltage signals in coax and other conductors are closely related to light, but distinctly different. Such an EM traveling field is not mentioned in our textbooks. It is a new idea to consider. 

 

Although we do not know the physical nature of this EM signal, we do not know the physical nature of electric fields, magnetic fields, light, or radio waves either. The Catt and Wakefield evidence may help us discover the nature of all of these EM phenomena. Catt, Wakefield, Bishop, you, and probably others are ahead of me in studying this issue. I'll read what Catt and Bishop have published on this subject.

 

Al

-----Original Message-----
From: Forrest Bishop
Sent: Sep 26, 2015 11:57 PM
To: ROGER ANDERTON , HARRY RICKER , Al McDowell , Ivor Catt
Cc: Cornelis Verhey , "Hatch...@JohnDeere.com" , "da...@dehilster.com" , "eric...@midcoast.com" , "rm...@comcast.net" , "nper...@snet.net" , "the....@comcast.net" , "frank...@yahoo.com" , "jary...@verizon.net" , "siri...@hotmail.com" , "PalA...@GMail.com" , "dgs...@alice.it" , "bill.l...@gmail.com" , "ian....@nsai.ie" , Baxter Glenn , "karl.virgi...@gmail.com" , "galilean_ele...@comcast.net" , "rar...@earthlink.net"
Subject: Re: Fwd: IVOR CATT

"You seem to suggest that Catt can explain the Wakefield experiment. If so, can you tell me where he explains it?" - AMcD

It is explained in Electromagnetics 1 http://www.ivorcatt.com/em.htm. It is re-explained in my paper- http://www.worldsci.org/pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE


On 9/26/2015 6:12 PM, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:

Anyway back to where the real action is, my latest video...

No Roger, it's not about you. That would be a different thread- all about The Greatness of Roger or something. This thread is about IVOR CATT. Please don't threadjack.

Far as Catt question is concerned, it is never clear in its writings whether is supposed to be understood by Newton or Einstein physics, so just a diversion.

Yes of course it is a diversion. It diverts the past 300++ years of electricity theory right into the junk yard, taking everybody's favorite aether theory- the one they came up with- with it. Newton vs Einstein is a red herring. Sheesh.

On Sunday, 27 September 2015, 2:04, ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com> wrote:

 

>>>Those who don.t know classical theory cannot usefully contribute. The relevant parts are described here; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm , beginning with the word; "Traditionally".

 

says: Since 1982 the question has been: Where does this new charge come from? Sir Michael Pepper, Knighted "for services to Physics", says it comes from the south. Nobel Prizewinner Professor Josephson say it comes from the west.

 

So it comes from the South-West, so what?

So kiss electric current goodbye, that's so what. Bye bye electrostatic fields and magnetostatic fields as well.

Forrest