What is your EM crankosity?
Benj
How well do you understand Maxwell's equations?
Ten easy questions to measure your kookosity:
1. An electromagnetic plane wave in free vacuum consists of a
sinusoidal electric
field and a sinusoidal magnetic field at right angles to it. These
fields are delayed
90 degrees from one another such that energy oscillates between them
in a
manner similar to an LRC circuit where the energy oscillates back and
forth
between capacitor storage and inductor storage. (true, false?)
2. A magnetic field changing strength in time causes an electric field
in space that is
capable of producing currents in conductors. The process is called
"induction"
and is described by Faraday's Law. (true, false?)
3. If a conducting circuit that encloses an area under a uniform
magnetic field that
totally covers the loop is changed in shape to enclose a different
amount of
magnetic flux, an emf will always be induced in the circuit due to the
changed
amount of flux. (true, false?)
4. When instruments measuring E and B (electric and magnetic fields)
that are
stationary with respect to those fields are placed on a moving
reference frame
moving with constant velocity with respect to the fields, by
relativity, the meters
always show the same values regardless of the magnitude of the
(constant)
velocity of the frame so long as the velocity of the moving frame is
much slower
than the speed of light. (true, false?)
5. For a point charge moving with a non-relativistic constant velocity
(not
accelerating) past an observer, the electric field from that charge
will be observed
to be the same spherical distribution found in electrostatics for a
non-moving
charge. (true, false)
6. According to Maxwell's Equations a time-changing electric field as
in a charging
or discharging capacitor creates a displacement current through that
capacitor and
that displacement current creates a magnetic field just as if the
capacitor were not
there and a wire carrying the current was producing the field. (true,
false?)
7. It can be shown that if a line charge segment is moving past you as
an observer at
some constant velocity, that not only does the apparent length of the
segment
change to the viewer, but by Lorentz contraction at relativistic
speeds the actual
length of the line charge segment changes as well. (true, false?)
8. It is well known through experiment and observations that
electromagnetic waves
as predicted by Maxwell's Equations form a spectrum depending on
frequency
that runs without other changes from low frequency radio waves, up
through
microwaves, on up to sub-millimeter waves, thence to Infrared light,
then visible
light, ultraviolet light and on up into X-rays and cosmic rays.
(true. false)
9. All electromagnetic clocks slow by the same amount as their frame
velocity
reaches significant relativistic speeds leading to the conclusion that
by relativity, a
"dilatation" of time takes place that affects all electromagnetic
events and even
including biological ones. (true , false?)
10. Electromagnetic waves as described by Maxwell's Equations,
propagate through
the vacuum of empty space by relationships observed from those
equations that a
changing electric field creates a magnetic field and a changing
magnetic field
creates an electric field. These waves are unique in that they do not
require a
medium to propagate in. (true, false?)
=======================
Hey, Uncle Al, this test's for you! Show us your stuff now so we
won't have to call you "idiot"!
susan
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:5e383309-0232-4441...@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> Are you a Maxwell loon?
> How well do you understand Maxwell's equations?
> Ten easy questions to measure your kookosity:
>
> 1. An electromagnetic plane wave in free vacuum consists of a
> sinusoidal electric
> field and a sinusoidal magnetic field at right angles to it. These
> fields are delayed
> 90 degrees from one another such that energy oscillates between them
> in a
> manner similar to an LRC circuit where the energy oscillates back and
> forth
> between capacitor storage and inductor storage. (true, false?)
false - no R component in EM in free vacuum.
>
> 2. A magnetic field changing strength in time causes an electric field
> in space that is
> capable of producing currents in conductors. The process is called
> "induction"
> and is described by Faraday's Law. (true, false?)
close, not exact
>
> 3. If a conducting circuit that encloses an area under a uniform
> magnetic field that
> totally covers the loop is changed in shape to enclose a different
> amount of
> magnetic flux, an emf will always be induced in the circuit due to the
> changed
> amount of flux. (true, false?)
mostly true, as wire crosses lines of flux
>
> 4. When instruments measuring E and B (electric and magnetic fields)
> that are
> stationary with respect to those fields are placed on a moving
> reference frame
> moving with constant velocity with respect to the fields, by
> relativity, the meters
> always show the same values regardless of the magnitude of the
> (constant)
> velocity of the frame so long as the velocity of the moving frame is
> much slower
> than the speed of light. (true, false?)
there is an error term.
>
> 5. For a point charge moving with a non-relativistic constant velocity
> (not
> accelerating) past an observer, the electric field from that charge
> will be observed
> to be the same spherical distribution found in electrostatics for a
> non-moving
> charge. (true, false)
there is an error term
>
> 6. According to Maxwell's Equations a time-changing electric field as
> in a charging
> or discharging capacitor creates a displacement current through that
> capacitor and
> that displacement current creates a magnetic field just as if the
> capacitor were not
> there and a wire carrying the current was producing the field. (true,
> false?)
how can you discharge a capacitor with it not being there?
>
> 7. It can be shown that if a line charge segment is moving past you as
> an observer at
> some constant velocity, that not only does the apparent length of the
> segment
> change to the viewer, but by Lorentz contraction at relativistic
> speeds the actual
> length of the line charge segment changes as well. (true, false?)
>
trivial
> 8. It is well known through experiment and observations that
> electromagnetic waves
> as predicted by Maxwell's Equations form a spectrum depending on
> frequency
> that runs without other changes from low frequency radio waves, up
> through
> microwaves, on up to sub-millimeter waves, thence to Infrared light,
> then visible
> light, ultraviolet light and on up into X-rays and cosmic rays.
> (true. false)
cosmic rays are various particals, not EM
>
> 9. All electromagnetic clocks slow by the same amount as their frame
> velocity
> reaches significant relativistic speeds leading to the conclusion that
> by relativity, a
> "dilatation" of time takes place that affects all electromagnetic
> events and even
> including biological ones. (true , false?)
how can one clock effect all time?
>
> 10. Electromagnetic waves as described by Maxwell's Equations,
> propagate through
> the vacuum of empty space by relationships observed from those
> equations that a
> changing electric field creates a magnetic field and a changing
> magnetic field
> creates an electric field. These waves are unique in that they do not
> require a
> medium to propagate in. (true, false?)
trivial, look at the equations.
doug
susan wrote:
Be careful, you are dealing with Benj. He is a crank with
an agenda. He does not know any science but he thinks
he do do clever things. He is also a fool.
Benj
> Be careful, you are dealing with Benj. He is a crank with
> an agenda. He does not know any science but he thinks
> he do do clever things. He is also a fool.
Valid warning, "Doug", but I notice that while you are calling
everyone else stooopid is was Susan who actually provided her answers
to the questions. You can't answer, let alone provide cites to support
your answer because you know nothing. You are obviously an English
major. Oh wait? "do do"? Maybe I'm wrong about the English part... Ah
yes, POLITICAL SCIENCE! Yeah, that's it! Idiot.
Androcles
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:5e383309-0232-4441...@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
Fucking nonsense. Not even connected with Maxwell.
doug
Benj wrote:
See, benj tries to hide his ignorance of science. He hopes
to bluster and keep people from noticing he is completely
ignoranct of science. Benj is a fool.
>
>
>
susan
"doug" <x...@xx.com> wrote in message
news:6YOdnRZat8zwgCXX...@posted.docknet...
figured that, looney is mixing subjects in same question, and leaves out
key information.
note how he deals with my answers, (which are all correct.)
Obviously he is not well read, and has a poor grasp of the subject.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Are you a Maxwell loon?
> How well do you understand Maxwell's equations?
> Ten easy questions to measure your kookosity:
>
> 1. An electromagnetic plane wave in free vacuum consists of a
> sinusoidal electric
> field and a sinusoidal magnetic field at right angles to it. These
> fields are delayed
> 90 degrees from one another such that energy oscillates between them
> in a
> manner similar to an LRC circuit where the energy oscillates back and
> forth
> between capacitor storage and inductor storage. (true, false?)
That's the end-game wave of lunacy, which is really the non-crap-for
brains
people started working on Holograms and On-Line Publishing and
stopped
working with the free press idiots, so it's actually only true or
fqlse
at Fox News rather than in the modern universes.
Benj
> See, benj tries to hide his ignorance of science. He hopes
> to bluster and keep people from noticing he is completely
> ignoranct of science. Benj is a fool.
Same crap. Just slander, libel and ignoranct. No science anywhere is
sight.
You are worse than a fool. You are a politician!
Benj
[snip moronic non-scientific comments from "Doug"]
> figured that, looney is mixing subjects in same question, and leaves out
> key information.
These are not PROBLEMS, susan. I'm not giving you values to calculate.
Whatsamatta? Can't handle two thoughts at the same time? There is all
the information you need to answer any of the questions.
> note how he deals with my answers, (which are all correct.)
> Obviously he is not well read, and has a poor grasp of the subject.
Oh My! Now Susan has caught the name-calling virus from "Doug"!
Obviously it is you who needs remedial reading. How can your answers
all be "correct" when on a true-false test you answer "mostly true"?
Quit hanging around with your inferiors (Doug) and start acting like
you actually know what you are talking about.
Don Kelly
"susan" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:h9968d$slc$1...@news.albasani.net...
-----
Good on you , Susan- you have again shown that you are one sharp cookie.
--
Don Kelly
dh...@shawcross.ca
remove the x to reply
Benj
wrote:
> That's the end-game wave of lunacy, which is really the non-crap-for
> brains people started working on Holograms and On-Line Publishing
> and stopped working with the free press idiots, so it's actually only
> true or false at Fox News rather than in the modern universes.
Whatsamatta baby? Actually having to decide is something is true or
not is too much for your non-scientific brain? It's better if
EVERYBODY wins the game and gets the trophy so that your itty bitty
self-of-steam doesn't get crimped! Which is why I work on holograms,
on-line-publishing lasers, optical data storage, free energy,
channeled science, life after death...
Have you ever made a hologram, an online publishing program, an
optical data storage device, an imaging tube for nuclear radiation,
and integrated circuit? Of course you haven't you have no more clue
than "doug" does how these things even work let alone have the
intelligence to design one from scratch. All you people can do is play
with your computer "CB radio" tying to convince the rubes that you
know what your are talking about by calling everyone else stooopid.
Like "doug" you haven't answered the questions either. Susan has. She
has bigger balls than both you clowns put together!
Benj
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> > Are you a Maxwell loon?
> > How well do you understand Maxwell's equations?
> > Ten easy questions to measure your kookosity:
> > 7. It can be shown that if a line charge segment is moving past you as
> > an observer at
> > some constant velocity, that not only does the apparent length of the
> > segment
> > change to the viewer, but by Lorentz contraction at relativistic
> > speeds the actual
> > length of the line charge segment changes as well. (true, false?)
> Fucking nonsense. Not even connected with Maxwell.
Shall I interpret that as putting you down for a "false" on # 7.?
Susan said "Trivial" but didn't say if it was true or false either.
Benj
> "susan" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> > trivial, look at the equations.
> -----
> Good on you , Susan- you have again shown that you are one sharp cookie.
Hey Don, what are your answers? Unlike Susan, carefully read the
questions (words actually have meanings) and answer "true" or "false"
for each one. Good luck!
Waddya think? Is Susan saying the answer to # 10. is "Trivial true" or
"Trivial false"? Saying that the answer to something is easy, is not
the same as actually giving an answer. And it's the same non-answer
she gave for # 7.
Androcles
==========================================
I don't give a flying fuck what you do.
Lorentz's contraction sqrt((c+v)*(c-v)/c^2)
Einstein's expansion 1/sqrt((c+v)*(c-v)/c^2)
are both idiocies that came along years after Maxwell.
Benj
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>> Shall I interpret that as putting you down for a "false" on # 7.?
>> Susan said "Trivial" but didn't say if it was true or false either.
>
> ==========================================
> I don't give a flying fuck what you do.
> Lorentz's contraction sqrt((c+v)*(c-v)/c^2)
> Einstein's expansion 1/sqrt((c+v)*(c-v)/c^2)
> are both idiocies that came along years after Maxwell.
So how did you get the idea that the questions were about the
HISTORICAL beliefs of Maxwell himself? The questions are about if the
STATEMENTS are true or false, not if Maxwell thought they were!
Androcles
=======================================
I do not share your EM crankosity. Go play with cranks who claim
Lorentz's contraction sqrt((c+v)*(c-v)/c^2) is
Einstein's expansion 1/sqrt((c+v)*(c-v)/c^2).
Wind 'em up, but I'm not nibbling your bait.
doug
Benj wrote:
> On Sep 21, 10:54 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>
>
>>See, benj tries to hide his ignorance of science. He hopes
>>to bluster and keep people from noticing he is completely
>>ignoranct of science. Benj is a fool.
>
>
> Same crap. Just slander, libel and ignoranct. No science anywhere is
> sight.
We certainly saw no science from you. We see your delusions but
that does not count.
> You are worse than a fool. You are a politician!
This is what passes for a scientific argument from benj.
>
>
Gordon Stangler
> Are you a Maxwell loon?
> How well do you understand Maxwell's equations?
> Ten easy questions to measure your kookosity:
>
2. True.
3. True, but only if the amount of magnetic flux changes.
4. True.
5. True, only if the particle's velocity is much less then c.
6. WTF? This question makes no sense.
7. This has nothing to do with E&M.
8. Cosmic rays are particles.
9. This has nothing to do with E&M.
10. True. Look at the equations: http://www.aitj-co.com/gcsgz5/blog/?p=242
For the equations in free space, see: http://www.aitj-co.com/gcsgz5/blog/?p=305
boggus
On Sep 21, 9:58 pm, "susan" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
[snip moronic non-scientific comments from "Doug"]
> figured that, looney is mixing subjects in same question, and leaves out
> key information.
<snip crap>
> note how he deals with my answers, (which are all correct.)
> Obviously he is not well read, and has a poor grasp of the subject.
<snip girly crap>
troll.
Benj
wrote:
Thanks Gordon.
1. Let me say that the first question appears confusing in that it was
not meant to revolve around my use of the term LRC circuit. Susan
latched on to that detail which was really a mistake on my part. The
question really has to do with the rest of the question about if there
is an interchange of energy between Electric and Magnetic fields in
waves like say occurs in an LC circuit. I was not trying to trick
anybody by putting an "R" in there. Sorry.
6. Yeah, could be worded better. The question in essence is whether or
not a displacement current is a real thing.
7. The Electric field from a line charge moving past you at constant
velocity has "nothing to do with E&M"? I think it does! But the real
question here is does that line charge actually get shorter if it
moves fast changing the observed field from it.
9. You are saying that a change in speed of various electromagnetic
oscillators, "clocks" as they move is not an E&M question? I think it
is! Note we are not using relativity to calculate those speed
changes.
I hope this clarifies some of the questions.
Thanx for playing!
Benj
> Benj wrote:
> > You are worse than a fool. You are a politician!
>
> This is what passes for a scientific argument from benj.
Yawn. Same old.
Still waiting for YOUR "expert" "educated" "Intelligent" answers to
the questions, "Doug"!
<Benj picks his teeth>
doug
blackhead
> susan wrote:
> > "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
Benj knows quite a bit about science and more than you, going by the
evidence so far.
> >>=======================
>
> >>Hey, Uncle Al, this test's for you! Show us your stuff now so we
> >>won't have to call you "idiot"!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
blackhead
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Go on, Doug, show us how clever and knowledgeable you are by answering
Benj's questions.
eric gisse
[...]
>
> Benj knows quite a bit about science and more than you, going by the
> evidence so far.
*snicker*
[...]
eric gisse
Why?
What do you hope to learn from stuff you should be able to answer yourself?
>
> <Benj picks his teeth>
doug
blackhead wrote:
That is proof you are very ignorant of science. It would be a good
idea for you to attend some science classes as well.
blackhead
> Are you a Maxwell loon?
> How well do you understand Maxwell's equations?
> Ten easy questions to measure your kookosity:
>
> 1. An electromagnetic plane wave in free vacuum consists of a
> sinusoidal electric
> field and a sinusoidal magnetic field at right angles to it. These
> fields are delayed
> 90 degrees from one another such that energy oscillates between them
> in a
> manner similar to an LRC circuit where the energy oscillates back and
> forth
> between capacitor storage and inductor storage. (true, false?)
Partly true. E and B are always at right angles, but don't exchange
energy with one another as they propagate.
> 2. A magnetic field changing strength in time causes an electric field
> in space that is
> capable of producing currents in conductors. The process is called
> "induction"
> and is described by Faraday's Law. (true, false?)
Indirectly true. An electric field, as well as being created by static
charge, is also created by moving charge, including that moving at
constant velocity.
> 3. If a conducting circuit that encloses an area under a uniform
> magnetic field that
> totally covers the loop is changed in shape to enclose a different
> amount of
> magnetic flux, an emf will always be induced in the circuit due to the
> changed
> amount of flux. (true, false?)
Indirectly true. It's directly the magnetic part of the Lorentz force
acting on the electrons as they move through B, given by F_B = eVxB.
> 4. When instruments measuring E and B (electric and magnetic fields)
> that are
> stationary with respect to those fields are placed on a moving
> reference frame
> moving with constant velocity with respect to the fields, by
> relativity, the meters
> always show the same values regardless of the magnitude of the
> (constant)
> velocity of the frame so long as the velocity of the moving frame is
> much slower
> than the speed of light. (true, false?)
False. E and B depend upon Q so small v effects are magnified by large
numbers of electrons, as in a typical piece of wire.
> 5. For a point charge moving with a non-relativistic constant velocity
> (not
> accelerating) past an observer, the electric field from that charge
> will be observed
> to be the same spherical distribution found in electrostatics for a
> non-moving
> charge. (true, false)
True.
> 6. According to Maxwell's Equations a time-changing electric field as
> in a charging
> or discharging capacitor creates a displacement current through that
> capacitor and
> that displacement current creates a magnetic field just as if the
> capacitor were not
> there and a wire carrying the current was producing the field. (true,
> false?)
False. Displacement current is a mathematical definition, with the
above interpretation being outdated. Only moving charge creates a
magnetic field.
> 7. It can be shown that if a line charge segment is moving past you as
> an observer at
> some constant velocity, that not only does the apparent length of the
> segment
> change to the viewer, but by Lorentz contraction at relativistic
> speeds the actual
> length of the line charge segment changes as well. (true, false?)
True, meaning the charge density increases.
> 8. It is well known through experiment and observations that
> electromagnetic waves
> as predicted by Maxwell's Equations form a spectrum depending on
> frequency
> that runs without other changes from low frequency radio waves, up
> through
> microwaves, on up to sub-millimeter waves, thence to Infrared light,
> then visible
> light, ultraviolet light and on up into X-rays and cosmic rays.
> (true. false)
True.
> 9. All electromagnetic clocks slow by the same amount as their frame
> velocity
> reaches significant relativistic speeds leading to the conclusion that
> by relativity, a
> "dilatation" of time takes place that affects all electromagnetic
> events and even
> including biological ones. (true , false?)
True
> 10. Electromagnetic waves as described by Maxwell's Equations,
> propagate through
> the vacuum of empty space by relationships observed from those
> equations that a
> changing electric field creates a magnetic field and a changing
> magnetic field
> creates an electric field. These waves are unique in that they do not
> require a
> medium to propagate in. (true, false?)
They don't need a medium to propagate through, although they do need
charge to initiate propagation. Neither field causes the other, they
propagate independently from the source at right angles to one
another.
Sam Wormley
>
> Benj knows quite a bit about science and more than you, going by the
> evidence so far.
>
<laughing>
Sam Wormley
>
> They don't need a medium to propagate through, although they do need
> charge to initiate propagation. Neither field causes the other, they
> propagate independently from the source at right angles to one
> another.
>
??
Don Kelly
---------
I guess it is trivial whatever you wish it to be.
Quite frankly, I don't care and am not about to brush up on my EM theory
(which I haven't touched in depth for many years ).
I have more respect for the depth of Susan's knowledge than for yours. This
is based on your posts and on hers-between them, hers consistently show more
sense and a better real understanding (and common sense).
I think that you have had a great deal of "exposure" to EM theory and do
question things- but setting up questions which may or may not be valid- in
what appears to be an attempt at self aggrandizement - is a fool's game. So
is paranoia.
Do I think that modern physics has all the answers? No, but questions are
being asked and alternatives tested.
Do I think that you have a better understanding? No, but you ask
questions - whether or not you want answers or testing is not apparent.
Do I think that Gaby and those he cites have "any" of the answers?
Definitely not. Excreta taurii cerebrum vincit.
Benj
> Waddya think? Is Susan saying the answer to # 10. is "Trivial true" or
> "Trivial false"? Saying that the answer to something is easy, is not
> the same as actually giving an answer. And it's the same non-answer
> she gave for # 7.
>
> ---------
> I guess it is trivial whatever you wish it to be.
Don takes his ball and won't play. Did you notice that this newsgroup
is for the discussion of physics? But you don't want to discuss any?
I guess you join with the others who think the purpose of this group
is to judge on "who is the smartest" whatever that means. The answers
to the questions I posed are not "whatever I wish them to be". Such is
stupid "Doug's" test of physics not the real one. The real test is
what conforms to reality. Everything else is speculation and opinion.
Note that these questions are picked so as to be able to be proved one
way or the other. I specifically did not ask "Gaby" type questions
such as "is there an aether?" or "Does 'free energy' violate
conservation of energy?"
> Quite frankly, I don't care and am not about to brush up on my EM theory
> (which I haven't touched in depth for many years ).
So you are posting in the EM group but don't care about EM? You admit
to having inadequate knowledge of the subject and yet presume to rate
each poster here as to whether or not they need "to take a freshman
course in physics" or not? So how then do you rate them? According to
how they comb their hair? But at least that puts you ahead of the
rest of the crowd like "Doug", Gisse, Wormley and the rest who think
they know it all and won't admit they don't.
> I have more respect for the depth of Susan's knowledge than for yours. This
> is based on your posts and on hers-between them, hers consistently show more
> sense and a better real understanding (and common sense).
I can do nothing about who you "respect" and do not respect. That is
your opinion and yours alone. But since you've already admitted that
you really don't have the knowledge (nor care to "brush up" on it) to
actually be able to form an intelligent opinion, I presume your
opinion is based upon personality traits, eye color or some other
feature you find "important".
> I think that you have had a great deal of "exposure" to EM theory and do
> question things- but setting up questions which may or may not be valid- in
> what appears to be an attempt at self aggrandizement - is a fool's game. So
> is paranoia.
You bet, Don. I've picked up quite a lot rubbing elbows and being
"exposed" to the learned college men who come into the Burger King
where I mop the floors! But since when is discussing physics and
learning and thinking about the problems it poses a "fool's game"?
You can call it self-aggrandizement if you wish, and if one wants to
term a demonstration that those who call others "ignorant" and
uneducated and "moron" themselves have not the intelligence nor the
knowledge of the subject to be able to produce an opinion that is in
any way credible, then yes, that is one thing this little quiz does.
You will notice that ALL and I mean EVERY one of the ad hominem
attackers has refused to show their own lack of knowledge and
education by venturing a guess or two on the questions. Does that make
me "smarter" than them? Who knows? At least these attackers are smart
enough to know the rule: It is better to keep your mouth shut and be
thought the fool than to open it an remove all doubt! I'll give them
credit for that.
As for "paranoia", Don, you are projecting! I haven't even posted that
part of this quiz yet! (it's in the "answers")
> Do I think that modern physics has all the answers? No, but questions are
> being asked and alternatives tested.
You don't get it Don. These questions are NOT "unanswered"! These are
questions that people think they know the answers to but don't. These
answers have already been established by competent professional
physicists.
> Do I think that you have a better understanding? No, but you ask
> questions - whether or not you want answers or testing is not apparent.
What I want is for everyone here to better understand their own ideas
in science. The problem that this quiz is intended to point out is
that there are a great many people in "science" who think they know
the "answers" but in actual fact do not. They know what some person
taught them years ago and have never questioned it since. And it's
worse than that. They not only know wrong things, but totally REJECT
any suggestion that what they "know" and believe is not correct. This
forms a religious-like prejudice that inhibits all further learning.
That is what this post is all about! Any attempts to break through
that hardened crust causes that person to violently attack the person
attempting to break through. And that's really a sad thing.
> Do I think that Gaby and those he cites have "any" of the answers?
> Definitely not. Excreta taurii cerebrum vincit.
Well, Gaby is a whole 'nother topic! But nevertheless one point
trying to be made here is that in science the SOURCE of the ideas are
irrelevant. Rejecting ideas a priori because the "wrong" person
suggested it isn't science at all. It's politics. It's nonsense. The
only true test in physics (unlike mathematics which has a DIFFERENT
"true test") is agreement with observed reality.
Apparently I need to get a lantern to carry around in the daytime.
Benj
[Nothing relevant]
Just one comment, which is not intended to be criticism of anyone
answering the questions, but I notice that Susan and Blackhead had a
reluctance to reduce their answers to a simple {true/false} decision.
They both saw subtleties in the details of each question and wanted to
bring those out. My original intent was that if any part of the
statement was false then I considered the entire statement false. As
in the same manner that a theory fails if there is ANY example where
it fails, no matter how many cases there are where it works. I just
found this attention to details interesting.
John Kennaugh
>Are you a Maxwell loon?
no.
>How well do you understand Maxwell's equations?
I don't but I know a man who does. Ivor Catt has made a major
contribution in making computers work faster by studying how EM energy
actually moves. He found that standard EM theory wasn't very useful. In
his critical study of Maxwell's equations he points out that the
accepted idea that the change of H field *causes* the change in E field
and vice versa is pure fabrication. Nothing in the equations can justify
that assumption. In fact Catt concludes that the only information
contained in the equations is the speed c and that at every point E and
H are in fixed proportion Zo = 377 ohms. Catt claims that this simple
fact is not mentioned in any physics text.
http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm
Since physics has disowned the aether concept it was in danger of
destroying its own foundations. To compensate it has tried to elevate
the status of Maxwell's equations far beyond what is warranted and to
imply that these are a worthy foundation on which to build a century of
physics.
Maxwell's equations are simply a re-arrangement of relationships worked
out by Faraday in respect of charge and only verified at low speed.
Maxwell discovered that the relationships could be arranged in a form
which mirrored the mathematical description of a fluid. Now waves can
propagate in a fluid and when Maxwell calculated, from Faraday's
constants at what speed "EM waves" might be expected to travel he found
that it was at the speed of light and concluded that light waves were EM
waves.
Note that although the equations are described as "wave equations" Catt
concludes that they do not have a solution which gives undulations. What
they describe is that the circumstances exist where waves might exist.
In other words they describe not waves but a 'medium' in which waves
might propagate. A century of physics is actually based on the belief
that Maxwell had put the aether on a sound mathematical footing. Having
disowned the aether that century of physics is supported by the myth
that Maxwell's equations have some mystical significance transcending
both their humble origins (Faraday) and their previously assumed
physical interpretation (the aether).
>Ten easy questions to measure your kookosity:
>
>1. An electromagnetic plane wave in free vacuum consists of a
>sinusoidal electric
>field and a sinusoidal magnetic field at right angles to it. These
>fields are delayed
>90 degrees from one another such that energy oscillates between them
>in a
>manner similar to an LRC circuit where the energy oscillates back and
>forth
>between capacitor storage and inductor storage. (true, false?)
>
>2. A magnetic field changing strength in time causes an electric field
>in space that is
>capable of producing currents in conductors. The process is called
>"induction"
>and is described by Faraday's Law. (true, false?)
>
>3. If a conducting circuit that encloses an area under a uniform
>magnetic field that
>totally covers the loop is changed in shape to enclose a different
>amount of
>magnetic flux, an emf will always be induced in the circuit due to the
>changed
>amount of flux. (true, false?)
>
>4. When instruments measuring E and B (electric and magnetic fields)
>that are
>stationary with respect to those fields are placed on a moving
>reference frame
>moving with constant velocity with respect to the fields, by
>relativity, the meters
>always show the same values regardless of the magnitude of the
>(constant)
>velocity of the frame so long as the velocity of the moving frame is
>much slower
>than the speed of light. (true, false?)
>
>5. For a point charge moving with a non-relativistic constant velocity
>(not
>accelerating) past an observer, the electric field from that charge
>will be observed
>to be the same spherical distribution found in electrostatics for a
>non-moving
>charge. (true, false)
>
>6. According to Maxwell's Equations a time-changing electric field as
>in a charging
>or discharging capacitor creates a displacement current through that
>capacitor and
>that displacement current creates a magnetic field just as if the
>capacitor were not
>there and a wire carrying the current was producing the field. (true,
>false?)
>
>7. It can be shown that if a line charge segment is moving past you as
>an observer at
>some constant velocity, that not only does the apparent length of the
>segment
>change to the viewer, but by Lorentz contraction at relativistic
>speeds the actual
>length of the line charge segment changes as well. (true, false?)
>
>8. It is well known through experiment and observations that
>electromagnetic waves
>as predicted by Maxwell's Equations form a spectrum depending on
>frequency
>that runs without other changes from low frequency radio waves, up
>through
>microwaves, on up to sub-millimeter waves, thence to Infrared light,
>then visible
>light, ultraviolet light and on up into X-rays and cosmic rays.
>(true. false)
>
>9. All electromagnetic clocks slow by the same amount as their frame
>velocity
>reaches significant relativistic speeds leading to the conclusion that
>by relativity, a
>"dilatation" of time takes place that affects all electromagnetic
>events and even
>including biological ones. (true , false?)
>
>10. Electromagnetic waves as described by Maxwell's Equations,
>propagate through
>the vacuum of empty space by relationships observed from those
>equations that a
>changing electric field creates a magnetic field and a changing
>magnetic field
>creates an electric field. These waves are unique in that they do not
>require a
>medium to propagate in. (true, false?)
>
>=======================
>
>Hey, Uncle Al, this test's for you! Show us your stuff now so we
>won't have to call you "idiot"!
--
John Kennaugh
blackhead
Perhaps you're querying the bit "they propagate independently from the
source at right angles to one another." which upon reflection isn't
true. That E depends upon charge and its velocity and acceleration
whereas B depends upon only the velocity and acceleration of charge,
rather than causing one another would be correct, I think.
Benj
wrote:
> Benj wrote:
> >Are you a Maxwell loon?
> no.
> >How well do you understand Maxwell's equations?
> I don't but I know a man who does. Ivor Catt has made a major
> contribution in making computers work faster by studying how EM energy
> actually moves. He found that standard EM theory wasn't very useful. In
> his critical study of Maxwell's equations he points out that the
> accepted idea that the change of H field *causes* the change in E field
> and vice versa is pure fabrication. Nothing in the equations can justify
> that assumption. In fact Catt concludes that the only information
> contained in the equations is the speed c and that at every point E and
> H are in fixed proportion Zo = 377 ohms. Catt claims that this simple
> fact is not mentioned in any physics text.
>
> http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm
It's a very interesting link. I was not aware of Ivor Catt, but his
conclusions are the same as those persons who eventually I will be
referencing here. As you observed, his work already gives the answers
to several of my questions. For anyone checking out the link I urge
you to follow the sub-links in that URL to other papers such as the
Maxwell Revisited one. Unfortunately the figures and drawings in the
original German paper was on Compuserve which is now dead. Hopefully a
working link will be put back. Check it out.
blackhead
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ivor Catt with his so called "Catt Anomaly" doesn't understand how
charge can rearrange itself in a conductor to create fields:
Androcles
> no.
===============================================
Aside from an interest in history/psychology, why would anyone
want to search/research for Maxwell's aether? It is a blind alley,
I urge you not to go that way. By all means meet Gauss, Ampere
and Faraday along the road, but don't turn left into Maxwell's
cul-de-sac looking for original Scottish papers that have been
translated into German.
Why would Maxwell write an original paper in German?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell
I won't say "idiot", no point in stating the obvious.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> On Sep 21, 11:26 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
> wrote:
>
> > That's the end-game wave of lunacy, which is really the non-crap-for
> > brains people started working on Holograms and On-Line Publishing
> > and stopped working with the free press idiots, so it's actually only
> > true or false at Fox News rather than in the modern universes.
>
> Whatsamatta baby? Actually having to decide is something is true or
> not is too much for your non-scientific brain?
Imbecile decision theory for was invented for imbecile
mathemetians.
Since they're the only idiots who think aleph-42 exists anyway.
The people who can actually think without a Kant Recipe work book
on Electronic Books, Reverse Compilers, Atomic Clock Wtistwatches,
non Rotating Computer Hard Disks, On-Line Publishng, Blue Ray,
and Self-Assembling Robots, rather than with laser stooges anyway.
It's better if
> EVERYBODY wins the game and gets the trophy so that your itty bitty
> self-of-steam doesn't get crimped! Which is why I work on holograms,
> on-line-publishing lasers, optical data storage, free energy,
> channeled science, life after death...
>
> Have you ever made a hologram, an online publishing program, an
> optical data storage device, an imaging tube for nuclear radiation,
> and integrated circuit? Of course you haven't you have no more clue
> than "doug" does how these things even work let alone have the
> intelligence to design one from scratch. All you people can do is play
> with your computer "CB radio" tying to convince the rubes that you
> know what your are talking about by calling everyone else stooopid.
> Like "doug" you haven't answered the questions either. Susan has. She
> has bigger balls than both you clowns put together!
doug
zzbu...@netscape.net wrote:
> On Sep 22, 12:50 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sep 21, 11:26 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That's the end-game wave of lunacy, which is really the non-crap-for
>>>brains people started working on Holograms and On-Line Publishing
>>>and stopped working with the free press idiots, so it's actually only
>>>true or false at Fox News rather than in the modern universes.
>>
>>Whatsamatta baby? Actually having to decide is something is true or
>>not is too much for your non-scientific brain?
>
>
> Imbecile decision theory for was invented for imbecile
> mathemetians.
> Since they're the only idiots who think aleph-42 exists anyway.
>
> The people who can actually think without a Kant Recipe work book
> on Electronic Books, Reverse Compilers, Atomic Clock Wtistwatches,
> non Rotating Computer Hard Disks, On-Line Publishng, Blue Ray,
> and Self-Assembling Robots, rather than with laser stooges anyway.
>
>
>
>
>
> It's better if
>
>>EVERYBODY wins the game and gets the trophy so that your itty bitty
>>self-of-steam doesn't get crimped! Which is why I work on holograms,
>>on-line-publishing lasers, optical data storage, free energy,
See, there you show you know nothing of science and just are
having delusions.
>>channeled science, life after death...
Yes, indeed, real science there.
>>
>> Have you ever made a hologram, an online publishing program, an
>>optical data storage device, an imaging tube for nuclear radiation,
>>and integrated circuit? Of course you haven't you have no more clue
>>than "doug" does how these things even work let alone have the
>>intelligence to design one from scratch.
My goodness, I hope you will one day be correct about something.
All you people can do is play
>>with your computer "CB radio" tying to convince the rubes that you
>>know what your are talking about by calling everyone else stooopid.
>>Like "doug" you haven't answered the questions either. Susan has. She
>>has bigger balls than both you clowns put together!
Well, benj, clearly you have self esteem issues and so your stupid
outbursts and tantrums here are to compensate for that. You contine
to say wrong things and look even more stupid than you have been.
>
>
Sam Wormley
>
> Perhaps you're querying the bit "they propagate independently from the
> source at right angles to one another." which upon reflection isn't
> true. That E depends upon charge and its velocity and acceleration
> whereas B depends upon only the velocity and acceleration of charge,
> rather than causing one another would be correct, I think.
>
Just as I though--You have no idea what you are talking about.
blackhead
Can you correct me then?
Sam Wormley
I tried to email you a relevant section from Griffiths, "Introduction
to Electrodynamics", 3rd edition, but the email bounced:
The following addresses had delivery problems:
<larry...@softhome.net>
Permanent Failure: 550_account_expired
Delivery last attempted at Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:04:44 -0000
Benj
> Well, benj, clearly you have self esteem issues and so your stupid
> outbursts and tantrums here are to compensate for that. You contine
> to say wrong things and look even more stupid than you have been.
Please list your psychiatric credentials that allow you to make this
diagnosis...
Oh that's right. The only credentials you've managed to acquire is
your big ugly mouth.
(And I must admit you are pretty good with that!)
doug
Benj wrote:
You go ahead and make my point for me.
>
Benj
> ===============================================
> Aside from an interest in history/psychology, why would anyone
> want to search/research for Maxwell's aether? It is a blind alley,
> I urge you not to go that way. By all means meet Gauss, Ampere
> and Faraday along the road, but don't turn left into Maxwell's
> cul-de-sac looking for original Scottish papers that have been
> translated into German.
> Why would Maxwell write an original paper in German?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell
>
> I won't say "idiot", no point in stating the obvious.
Whoa there Andro. Nobody here mentioned "aether" or the history of
what Maxwell believed except you!
Are you trying to tell us that classical E&M based upon Maxwell's
equations are not studied by everyone today? You know better than
that, Andro.
Szczepan Białek
"John Kennaugh" <JK...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
news:Uw7TWEEE...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> Benj wrote:
>>Are you a Maxwell loon?
>
> no.
>
>>How well do you understand Maxwell's equations?
>
> I don't but I know a man who does. Ivor Catt has made a major contribution
> in making computers work faster by studying how EM energy actually moves.
> He found that standard EM theory wasn't very useful. In his critical study
> of Maxwell's equations he points out that the accepted idea that the
> change of H field *causes* the change in E field and vice versa is pure
> fabrication. Nothing in the equations can justify that assumption. In fact
> Catt concludes that the only information contained in the equations is the
> speed c and that at every point E and H are in fixed proportion Zo = 377
> ohms. Catt claims that this simple fact is not mentioned in any physics
> text.
>
> http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm
>
> Since physics has disowned the aether concept it was in danger of
> destroying its own foundations. To compensate it has tried to elevate the
> status of Maxwell's equations far beyond what is warranted and to imply
> that these are a worthy foundation on which to build a century of physics.
>
> Maxwell's equations are simply a re-arrangement of relationships worked
> out by Faraday in respect of charge and only verified at low speed.
> Maxwell discovered that the relationships could be arranged in a form
> which mirrored the mathematical description of a fluid.
The fluid is a good analogy. But there are many possibilities. Maxwell
choose the whirls (vortices).
But in the fluid the two ships attract when travel in the same direction. We
do not need magnetism whirls. For Ampere magnetism was an illusion.
Can anybody say for what reason the cuurent produce the magnetic whirl.
Current produce strains and streses.
>Now waves can propagate in a fluid and when Maxwell calculated, from
>Faraday's constants at what speed "EM waves" might be expected to travel he
>found that it was at the speed of light and concluded that light waves were
>EM waves.
But in fluid are also pressure waves. We do not need the transversal waves.
No such in reality.
>
> Note that although the equations are described as "wave equations" Catt
> concludes that they do not have a solution which gives undulations. What
> they describe is that the circumstances exist where waves might exist. In
> other words they describe not waves but a 'medium' in which waves might
> propagate.
He describes the solid ether with the transverse waves. Do not usefull at
all.
> A century of physics is actually based on the belief that Maxwell had put
> the aether on a sound mathematical footing. Having disowned the aether
> that century of physics is supported by the myth that Maxwell's equations
> have some mystical significance transcending both their humble origins
> (Faraday) and their previously assumed physical interpretation (the
> aether).
Todays "Maxwell's equations " were written by Heaviside.
S*
Benj
wrote:
> On Sep 22, 12:50 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > Whatsamatta baby? Actually having to decide is something is true or
> > not is too much for your non-scientific brain?
>
> Imbecile decision theory for was invented for imbecile
> mathemetians.
> Since they're the only idiots who think aleph-42 exists anyway.
{Buncha lame excuses and hand waving to cover up hiding}
Binary too much for you to handle? That's why people who really think
use binary to build computers, optical data storage, online databases,
blue ray, robots, intelligent usenet discussions...
Androcles
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:4468a5bf-7dfd-4803...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
I was not aware of Ivor Catt, but his
conclusions are the same as those persons who eventually I will be
referencing here. As you observed, his work already gives the answers
to several of my questions. For anyone checking out the link I urge
you to follow the sub-links in that URL to other papers such as the
Maxwell Revisited one. Unfortunately the figures and drawings in the
original German paper was on Compuserve which is now dead. Hopefully a
working link will be put back. Check it out.
On Sep 23, 9:19 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote:
================================================
I'm trying to tell you Maxwell wasn't German.
Fortunately the figures and drawings in the original German paper
are as dead as Compuserve. Hopefully a working link will be NOT
put back. Do not bother to Check it out.
BTW, I was reading Ivor Catt in "Wireless World" back in the
'70s, I've a few years experience with actual radio and theoretical
radio and I thank Ivor Catt for his humorous and common sense
approach. The difference between an engineer and an academic
scientist is the engineer knows what he's talking about.
You don't know any better than that, Binge.
Satan I love it when I end up on the opposite side to Jocaby. :-)
blackhead
> blackhead wrote:
> > On 23 Sep, 15:09, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> blackhead wrote:
>
> >>> Perhaps you're querying the bit "they propagate independently from the
> >>> source at right angles to one another." which upon reflection isn't
> >>> true. That E depends upon charge and its velocity and acceleration
> >>> whereas B depends upon only the velocity and acceleration of charge,
> >>> rather than causing one another would be correct, I think.
> >> Just as I though--You have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> > Can you correct me then?
>
> I tried to email you a relevant section from Griffiths, "Introduction
> to Electrodynamics", 3rd edition, but the email bounced:
>
> The following addresses had delivery problems:
>
> Permanent Failure: 550_account_expired
> Delivery last attempted at Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:04:44 -0000
My email isn't valid and thanks, you seem sincere about helping
people.
I suspect you tried to email me the section on the Lienard Wiechert
radiation fields of a moving charge. In those equations, E is a
function of the charge q, the retarded velocity v, retarded
acceleration a and retarded radius vector from the field point to the
charge, with B = 1/c r/R x E. So B is always perpendicular to E and r.
So although a changing E and changing B don't cause one another, they
aren't independent of one another.
Bill Miller
> Are you a Maxwell loon?
>
Um...
Well, as near as I can figure, it looks like ALL of the <snipped> questions
are false.
The only one that I might have a problem in justifying is the stupid thing
with the clocks. I say that because I haven't yet perfected my
almost-lightspeed laboratory so I can actually do an experiment rather than
relying on math.
Bill
Sam Wormley
<smiling>
Bill Miller
"John Kennaugh" <JK...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Uw7TWEEE...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
IMO Catt's primary contribution is/was the recognition that there is no such
thaing as a capacitor. (Or an inductor, for that matter, but that derivation
is a good deal more abstruse!)
Anyone that has ever worked with radio waves for any period of time knows
that an (electrically) short piece of open circuit transmission line acts
like a capacitor.
Catt's contribution was to recognize and (partly) codify some advice he got
when working with PCB design way back when. A short piec of transmission
line does not act LIKE a capacitor. Instead, all capacitors ARE transmission
lines.
One interesting side note is that we are all taught that a
capacitor/resistor network *always* charges and discharges in an exponential
fashion. As such, there are two absolutely true statements (we are taught.)
First, the voltage across a capacitor in an RC network can *never* exceed
the supply voltage.
Second, the voltage can *never* go to ZERO nor to 100% of the supply
voltage.
Both of the above can be shown to be false for specific capacitor
configurations. And they are easy (and kinda fun) to model in SPICE.
Bill
Bill Miller
"blackhead" <larry...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:822cb0b0-d233-47f1...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On 23 Sep, 13:08, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Sep 23, 5:30 am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
charge can rearrange itself in a conductor to create fields:
(or vice versa?)
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/catanoi.htm
I agree, and it is a shame, because it kinda tarnishes an otherwise very
impressive set of conclusions.
My favorite is his analysis of "Copper as a Dielectric." !!!
Bill
Androcles
"Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7hvbgtF...@mid.individual.net...
Nobody ever taught me the voltage across a capacitor in an
RC network can *never* exceed the supply voltage. I expect you are
thinking DC in which case it would be true, but clearly if one applies
AC the voltage across a capacitor approaches the peak-to-peak voltage.
Benj
wrote:
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> > Are you a Maxwell loon?
> > How well do you understand Maxwell's equations?
> > Ten easy questions to measure your kookosity:
> > <snip>
> Um...
>
> Well, as near as I can figure, it looks like ALL of the <snipped> questions
> are false.
=======================
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!
Folks we have a WINNER!
(and it wasn't the Jewish heritage of Uncle Al, the jargon glossary).
(It also wasn't ANY of the ad hominems who spend their days calling
everyone else stooopid who were scared to enter)
=======================
ALL statements are demonstrably false!
Score: = number of statements you said were false
10.You are a major kook and are the crankiest. You know nothing about
science and should go read a freshman physics text book. Don’t forget
your tinfoil “reading helmet” when doing that. You’ll be lucky to stay
alive.
9. You are very much out of the mainstream and know nothing about
science. You’re fired. And you’ll never work or publish in science
again.
8. You have major problems in your profession. You just got a memo
from the boss to come to his office to see if you can be “brought
round” before it’s too late.
7. Your paper has been rejected for publication even though none of
the topics covered here were mentioned in it.
6. You have serious gaps in your electromagnetic understanding. To
keep your job you’d better tell everyone your specialty is acoustics.
5. You have a pretty good understanding of science but half your
answers are wrong. But that’s OK since you probably teach high
school.
4. Your traditional science is pretty good, but you made a handful of
“mistakes”. You are probably an engineer.
3. Since you only made three “mistakes”, you probably are a college
physics professor whose primary responsibility is teaching freshman
physics.
2. Making just two deviations from traditional understanding likely
means you are a college physics professor, but your primary
responsibility is to teach, “physics appreciation” to education
majors.
1. You are a post-doc employed on a government funded research
project on which you are doing all the work and thinking and for which
the full professor whose name and reputation are on the original
proposal will take all the credit.
0. You are a highly paid government project administrator with a
perfect understanding of traditional science. You have a Ph. D., you
have hundreds of patents with your name on them and thousands of
papers that list you as one of the authors. You are an ultimate
authority ready to debunk any crank science when asked to do so by the
major media.
Bill Miller
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message
news:T_uum.184169$_Q3.1...@newsfe20.ams2...
>
> "Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:7hvbgtF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> One interesting side note is that we are all taught that a
>> capacitor/resistor network *always* charges and discharges in an
>> exponential fashion. As such, there are two absolutely true statements
>> (we are taught.)
>>
>> First, the voltage across a capacitor in an RC network can *never* exceed
>> the supply voltage.
>>
>> Second, the voltage can *never* go to ZERO nor to 100% of the supply
>> voltage.
>>
>> Both of the above can be shown to be false for specific capacitor
>> configurations. And they are easy (and kinda fun) to model in SPICE.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Nobody ever taught me the voltage across a capacitor in an
> RC network can *never* exceed the supply voltage. I expect you are
> thinking DC in which case it would be true, but clearly if one applies
> AC the voltage across a capacitor approaches the peak-to-peak voltage.
>
Well, if the supply voltage is AC OR DC, we are taught that the voltage
across the capacitor cannot exceed the supply voltage. What you may be
thinking about is an RC circuit in a rectifier arrangement. In that case,
The voltage across the capacitor can approach the peak value of the incoming
signal. That value is higher, of course, than the RMS value.
Otherwise, my comment stands.
Bill
Bill Miller
On Sep 23, 2:53 pm, "Bill Miller" <billmillerkt...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
=======================
=======================
******************
Um...
I hate to ask, but...
Well...
That is...
Are there any openings at the Burger King where you work?
Bill
Benj
wrote:
> Well, as near as I can figure, it looks like ALL of the <snipped> questions
> are false.
>
> The only one that I might have a problem in justifying is the stupid thing
> with the clocks. I say that because I haven't yet perfected my
> almost-lightspeed laboratory so I can actually do an experiment rather than
> relying on math.
Lets start with #1, shall we? While it's true that the electric and
magnetic fields are at right angles to each other, they are NOT 90
degrees out of phase. Since they rise and fall together, they cannot
transfer energy back and forth and DO NOT "create each other". The LC
analogy IS a valid idea for wave propagation, however, but it just
doesn't apply to EM waves. The reason is that flow of energy back and
forth (as between mass and spring in mechanical waves) relates to the
medium the waves propagate in. Unfortunately such a medium is
"undefined" or "unknown" for E&M. [Note that to say that the medium
does not "exist" is completely illogical and makes no sense
whatsoever. "Nothing at all" is not capable of properties such as the
propagation of waves] Thus, one cannot say what it is that takes the
energy at X and starts transferring it to X+ delta X so the waves
propagate. It is not E and H that do this. See any E&M textbook to
prove E and B are in phase. That was too easy.
Let's now jump to #9 For Bill. Relativity implies that clocks slow as
they approach the speed of light. So the question comes: "do
electromagnetic clocks in moving reference frames slow because of
retardation without even considering relativity?" The calculations
have been done by Oleg Jefimenko in his book "Electromagnetic
Retardation and the Theory of Relativity" in Chapter 10 "the rate of
moving clocks". What he finds after calculating the slowing rate for a
number of electromagnetic oscillators (clocks) is that some indeed do
slow at the Einsteinian rate. Some do not. Some do but the amount of
slowing depends upon orientation. He notes that his calculations show
that electromagnetic clock slowing is not a relativistic effect at
all, but is a dynamic effect where slowing in general may not be
proportional to gamma. His conclusion therefore is that there is no
such thing as "time dilation". And Jefimenko notes that while
calculation of the electromagentic "clocks" give implications, we are
not provided with ANY information as to how one would calculate the
slowing of biological clocks as say found in the "Twin Paradox". But
relativity concerns aside, the main point here (as proved by the
calculations of the various oscillators) is that various
electromagnetic "clocks" do NOT all slow by the same amount when
viewed in a moving frame. OK?
eric gisse
[...]
> ALL statements are demonstrably false!
The only thing you demonstrated is how you would fail any undergraduate E&M
course, and how you'd be laughed out of the room if you stepped into a
graduate E&M course.
Somehow I'm skeptical that you've studied any aspect of Jackson or any of
the more worthy undergrad texts like Griffiths.
[...]
Mary
On Sep 22, 8:39 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
[Nothing relevant]
Just one comment, which is not intended to be criticism of anyone
answering the questions, but I notice that Susan and Blackhead had a
reluctance to reduce their answers to a simple {true/false} decision.
They both saw subtleties in the details of each question and wanted to
bring those out. My original intent was that if any part of the
statement was false then I considered the entire statement false. As
in the same manner that a theory fails if there is ANY example where
it fails, no matter how many cases there are where it works. I just
found this attention to details interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
you failed to state your intent in OP
You know very little about EM or physics.
Androcles
I understand the janitor was fired for mopping the toilet bowl with
a burger bun and then ate the evidence with fries, ketchup and a
healthy dose of salt. It wasn't his lunch break so he had to be
dismissed.
Androcles
>
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message
> news:T_uum.184169$_Q3.1...@newsfe20.ams2...
>>
>> "Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:7hvbgtF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
> <snip>
>>> One interesting side note is that we are all taught that a
>>> capacitor/resistor network *always* charges and discharges in an
>>> exponential fashion. As such, there are two absolutely true statements
>>> (we are taught.)
>>>
>>> First, the voltage across a capacitor in an RC network can *never*
>>> exceed the supply voltage.
>>>
>>> Second, the voltage can *never* go to ZERO nor to 100% of the supply
>>> voltage.
>>>
>>> Both of the above can be shown to be false for specific capacitor
>>> configurations. And they are easy (and kinda fun) to model in SPICE.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> Nobody ever taught me the voltage across a capacitor in an
>> RC network can *never* exceed the supply voltage. I expect you are
>> thinking DC in which case it would be true, but clearly if one applies
>> AC the voltage across a capacitor approaches the peak-to-peak voltage.
>>
>
> Well, if the supply voltage is AC OR DC, we are taught
No no, Bill...
YOU are taught.
*You* are not "we". *I* am not "we".
*I* have a different teacher.
> that the voltage across the capacitor cannot exceed the supply voltage.
> What you may be thinking about is an RC circuit in a rectifier
> arrangement. In that case, The voltage across the capacitor can approach
> the peak value of the incoming signal. That value is higher, of course,
> than the RMS value.
>
> Otherwise, my comment stands.
You can say you what you were taught all you want to, Bill, and I will offer
no argument. Just don't say "we". I did not attend any dumb American
schools, *I* was educated in England. "We" were not.
Nobody ever taught me the voltage across a capacitor in an RC
network can *never* exceed the supply voltage, even if some American
idiot taught you that.
Androcles
> Well, as near as I can figure, it looks like ALL of the <snipped>
> questions
> are false.
>
> The only one that I might have a problem in justifying is the stupid thing
> with the clocks. I say that because I haven't yet perfected my
> almost-lightspeed laboratory so I can actually do an experiment rather
> than
> relying on math.
Lets start with #1, shall we? While it's true that the electric and
magnetic fields are at right angles to each other, they are NOT 90
degrees out of phase.
=============================================
Let's stop with #1, shall we?
Idiot^2.
http://tinyurl.com/nz7l3n
Better yet, fuckin' ([imbecile] *[moron] * [cretin]^2)
Benj
> you failed to state your intent in OP
Hey, "Mary" it's obvious that the intend of any post is to stimulate
discussion on the topic.
> You know very little about EM or physics.
Care to elaborate why you feel that way? Proof of how any or all of
the statements are true would be a good start on showing us what you
know. Otherwise it's just one more anonymous opinion worth what we
paid to get it.
Benj
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>
> Lets start with #1, shall we? While it's true that the electric and
> magnetic fields are at right angles to each other, they are NOT 90
> degrees out of phase.
> =============================================
> Let's stop with #1, shall we?
> Idiot^2.
> http://tinyurl.com/nz7l3n
> Better yet, fuckin' ([imbecile] *[moron] * [cretin]^2)
You think there is a "power factor" of 90 degrees on TEM plane waves
in a vacuum? Read a freshman physics textbook Andro. See Plonsey and
Colin "Principles and Applications of Electromagnetic Fields" Pages
308-309. It's perfect for you Andro. You don't have to actually read
anything. You only have to look at the pretty pictures.
Inertial
Personally, I don't see the problem with posing some questions to test
readers understanding of EM theory.
Don Kelly
--
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:5e4d53b6-63ae-46f3...@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 22, 11:40 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shawcross.ca> wrote:
> Waddya think? Is Susan saying the answer to # 10. is "Trivial true" or
> "Trivial false"? Saying that the answer to something is easy, is not
> the same as actually giving an answer. And it's the same non-answer
> she gave for # 7.
>
> ---------
> I guess it is trivial whatever you wish it to be.
Don takes his ball and won't play. Did you notice that this newsgroup
is for the discussion of physics? But you don't want to discuss any?
I guess you join with the others who think the purpose of this group
is to judge on "who is the smartest" whatever that means. The answers
to the questions I posed are not "whatever I wish them to be". Such is
stupid "Doug's" test of physics not the real one. The real test is
what conforms to reality. Everything else is speculation and opinion.
Note that these questions are picked so as to be able to be proved one
way or the other. I specifically did not ask "Gaby" type questions
such as "is there an aether?" or "Does 'free energy' violate
conservation of energy?"
> Quite frankly, I don't care and am not about to brush up on my EM theory
> (which I haven't touched in depth for many years ).
So you are posting in the EM group but don't care about EM? You admit
to having inadequate knowledge of the subject and yet presume to rate
each poster here as to whether or not they need "to take a freshman
course in physics" or not? So how then do you rate them? According to
how they comb their hair? But at least that puts you ahead of the
rest of the crowd like "Doug", Gisse, Wormley and the rest who think
they know it all and won't admit they don't.
> I have more respect for the depth of Susan's knowledge than for yours.
> This
> is based on your posts and on hers-between them, hers consistently show
> more
> sense and a better real understanding (and common sense).
I can do nothing about who you "respect" and do not respect. That is
your opinion and yours alone. But since you've already admitted that
you really don't have the knowledge (nor care to "brush up" on it) to
actually be able to form an intelligent opinion, I presume your
opinion is based upon personality traits, eye color or some other
feature you find "important".
> I think that you have had a great deal of "exposure" to EM theory and do
> question things- but setting up questions which may or may not be valid-
> in
> what appears to be an attempt at self aggrandizement - is a fool's game.
> So
> is paranoia.
You bet, Don. I've picked up quite a lot rubbing elbows and being
"exposed" to the learned college men who come into the Burger King
where I mop the floors! But since when is discussing physics and
learning and thinking about the problems it poses a "fool's game"?
You can call it self-aggrandizement if you wish, and if one wants to
term a demonstration that those who call others "ignorant" and
uneducated and "moron" themselves have not the intelligence nor the
knowledge of the subject to be able to produce an opinion that is in
any way credible, then yes, that is one thing this little quiz does.
You will notice that ALL and I mean EVERY one of the ad hominem
attackers has refused to show their own lack of knowledge and
education by venturing a guess or two on the questions. Does that make
me "smarter" than them? Who knows? At least these attackers are smart
enough to know the rule: It is better to keep your mouth shut and be
thought the fool than to open it an remove all doubt! I'll give them
credit for that.
As for "paranoia", Don, you are projecting! I haven't even posted that
part of this quiz yet! (it's in the "answers")
------
The paranoia did not appear in this particular post.
> Do I think that modern physics has all the answers? No, but questions are
> being asked and alternatives tested.
You don't get it Don. These questions are NOT "unanswered"! These are
questions that people think they know the answers to but don't. These
answers have already been established by competent professional
physicists.
> Do I think that you have a better understanding? No, but you ask
> questions - whether or not you want answers or testing is not apparent.
What I want is for everyone here to better understand their own ideas
in science. The problem that this quiz is intended to point out is
that there are a great many people in "science" who think they know
the "answers" but in actual fact do not. They know what some person
taught them years ago and have never questioned it since. And it's
worse than that. They not only know wrong things, but totally REJECT
any suggestion that what they "know" and believe is not correct. This
forms a religious-like prejudice that inhibits all further learning.
That is what this post is all about! Any attempts to break through
that hardened crust causes that person to violently attack the person
attempting to break through. And that's really a sad thing.
> Do I think that Gaby and those he cites have "any" of the answers?
> Definitely not. Excreta taurii cerebrum vincit.
Well, Gaby is a whole 'nother topic! But nevertheless one point
trying to be made here is that in science the SOURCE of the ideas are
irrelevant. Rejecting ideas a priori because the "wrong" person
suggested it isn't science at all. It's politics. It's nonsense. The
only true test in physics (unlike mathematics which has a DIFFERENT
"true test") is agreement with observed reality.
Apparently I need to get a lantern to carry around in the daytime.
I am not trying to use this group to see "whose the smartest". I do
recognize my limits. I also consider what conforms to reality. I would like
you to show what you mean rather than run a series of questions which appear
to be of the "whose the smartest variety".
As to the questions-
#1 Poynting points the way- I would suggest that there is a double frequency
power component which has a 0 time average. This is somewhat of an intuitive
answer.
#2 False: there is no such thing as an induced current. Faraday's Law deals
with induced voltage.
#3 False: any emf induced will depend on the rate of change of the flux
enclosed. Given that, Maxwell's appropriate equation is usually written
(in the integral form) with the time derivative term inside the integral but
can be written with the time derivative outside the integral allowing for
coil area changes - this is the basis for taking the circuit form for
inductances as d(Li)/dt allowing for speed voltage (L changing) as well as
transformer voltage (i changing) in modelling electric machines- and the
speed voltage (often due to changes in the effective area of the coil) is
dominant in most machines. Guess what-it coincides with reality!
The rest are of the same sort and some I can't answer at the present. I
cannot now go to my bookshelf, or better yet, walk to the office next door
to find an expert in the area- so I don't have all the answers.
Note that being able to prove one way or the other does imply that one can
take a position of "whatever you wish"
Where did I say learning and thinking was a fool's game?
That is not what I called a fools game. Who is learning from this little
quiz? not you as you know the answers. Not me as I don't know all the
answers.Note also that I didn't say that these particular questions were
unanswered.
Yes, my EM is rusty- but it isn't non-existent-and your discussion of
physics doesn't help me remove cobwebs and go further. Susan's comments,
along with those of some others do add to my knowledge.
Please note that I don't support Doug's comments.
I can agree with you said in the following paragraph and I do recall a
previous encounter where you were shown the basis for something, and
accepted it- so you can listen and learn. I can as well, even though I don't
always show it (old fart syndrome)
"What I want is for everyone here to better understand their own ideas
in science. ........ And that's really a sad thing."
Anyhow, we've both let off some steam.
--
Don Kelly
dh...@shawcross.ca
remove the x to reply
Benj
> As to the questions-
> #1 Poynting points the way- I would suggest that there is a double frequency
> power component which has a 0 time average. This is somewhat of an intuitive
> answer.
What you say is true. The Poynting vector shows that the wave is
transporting energy. However the essence of the question has to do
with whether E and B lag each other by 90 degrees (they do not) and
whether or not wave propagation is the result of energy ping-ponging
back and forth between E an B. (it does not because they are in
phase).
> #2 False: there is no such thing as an induced current. Faraday's Law deals
> with induced voltage.
No, that isn't the idea. Induction is where an electric field is
generated in space. That field can produce forces on free charges (as
in wires) to create a current. Actually we talk about "emf" which
represents potential that is the integral of the field with a test
charge over distance. A tricky aspect is that this field is not
conservative. Faraday's law deals with all these things.
Where the problem comes in, is I said that it is a CHANGING MAGNETIC
FIELD that creates this induced E field. This is flat out wrong.
Faraday's law may be a true relationship, but it's NOT a causal
relationship. The actual true mechanism is that a changing current
(charges) creates BOTH a magnetic field AND the induced electric field
that can produce the induced current in wires etc. Both the magnetic
field AND the electric fields travel away from the changing source
current at the speed of light and hence are simultaneous and therefore
cannot "cause" one another.
Thus, Answer is "false", but not for the reason you say.
> #3 False: any emf induced will depend on the rate of change of the flux
> enclosed. Given that, Maxwell's appropriate equation is usually written
> (in the integral form) with the time derivative term inside the integral but
> can be written with the time derivative outside the integral allowing for
> coil area changes - this is the basis for taking the circuit form for
> inductances as d(Li)/dt allowing for speed voltage (L changing) as well as
> transformer voltage (i changing) in modelling electric machines- and the
> speed voltage (often due to changes in the effective area of the coil) is
> dominant in most machines. Guess what-it coincides with reality!
So you are saying the statement is true? Nope. Wrong. The statement is
usually true but not ALWAYS true. You sort of have the idea but not
quite. It has to do with HOW you change the amount of flux enclosed
within the circuit. If you have a wire loop and just grab it and bend
it to a new outline, indeed the changing flux will always relate to an
emf created in the circuit. On the other hand if the circuit changes
shape with a SWITCHING scheme, you find that great flux changes can
occur but there will be ZERO emf induced in the circuit. For an
example see Feynman Lectures Vol II Section 17-2 "exceptions to the
flux rule". Especially look at the rocking plate apparatus Fig. 17-3.
Feynman doesn't really explain how this apparatus "works" but if you
think about it carefully you'll see it is a disguised "switching"
device. Switching devices do not follow the "flux rule", because a
requirement of Maxwell's Equations is that functions be continuous and
differentiable. Switching setups are not.
Cheers.
Szczepan Białek
"Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
news:7hvbgtF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> Anyone that has ever worked with radio waves for any period of time knows
> that an (electrically) short piece of open circuit transmission line acts
> like a capacitor.
>
> First, the voltage across a capacitor in an RC network can *never* exceed
> the supply voltage.
In end of antennas the "supply voltage" (the peak value) is doubled. For
this reason the end radiates very strong electric field (in pulses of
course). This pules are the radio waves. EM is useless here. It is only the
piece to teach match.
S*
John Kennaugh
I think that today's Maxwell's Equations are thanks to Lorentz who
considerably developed Maxwell's original. More properly it should be
referred to as Maxwell/Lorentz electrodynamics.
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
Have you come across a thing called a 'time domain reflectometer'. We
found out a lot using that in the 70s when emitter coupled logic was in
its infancy. It gives an incredibly sharp edge and then displays all the
reflections along the route it is propagating along. It allows you to
check how constant the impedance of a transmission line is, how good a
connector is and what sort of capacitors are best at absorbing high
frequencies as in de-coupling - not necessarily the ones you might
think. At high frequency a supply track is inductive and a good high
frequency capacitor is liable to 'tune' it while a lossey capacitor will
absorb the energy. That was before multi-layer boards. Now you can have
a nice 'supply plain'.
--
John Kennaugh
John Kennaugh
>On 23 Sep, 13:08, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 23, 5:30�am, John Kennaugh <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > >Are you a Maxwell loon?
>> > no.
>> > >How well do you understand Maxwell's equations?
>> > I don't but I know a man who does. Ivor Catt has made a major
>> > contribution in making computers work faster by studying how EM energy
>> > actually moves. He found that standard EM theory wasn't very useful. In
>> > his critical study of Maxwell's equations he points out that the
>> > accepted idea that the change of H field *causes* the change in E field
>> > and vice versa is pure fabrication. Nothing in the equations can justify
>> > that assumption. In fact Catt concludes that the only information
>> > contained in the equations is the speed c and that at every point E and
>> > H �are in fixed proportion Zo = 377 ohms. Catt claims that this simple
>> > fact is not mentioned in any physics text.
>>
>> >http://www.ivorcatt.com/2804.htm
>>
>> conclusions are the same as those persons who eventually I will be
>> referencing here. As you observed, his work already gives the answers
>> to several of my questions. For anyone checking out the link I urge
>> you to follow the sub-links in that URL to other papers such as the
>> Maxwell Revisited one. Unfortunately the figures and drawings in the
>> original German paper was on Compuserve which is now dead. Hopefully a
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Ivor Catt with his so called "Catt Anomaly" doesn't understand how
>charge can rearrange itself in a conductor to create fields:
>
>
It is a simple enough question which you haven't answered. I would be
interested in your answer.
--
John Kennaugh
Androcles
On Sep 23, 9:34 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote:
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>
> Lets start with #1, shall we? While it's true that the electric and
> magnetic fields are at right angles to each other, they are NOT 90
> degrees out of phase.
> =============================================
> Let's stop with #1, shall we?
> Idiot^2.
> http://tinyurl.com/nz7l3n
> Better yet, fuckin' ([imbecile] *[moron] * [cretin]^2)
You think there is a "power factor" of 90 degrees on TEM plane waves
in a vacuum?
==============================================
Don't be silly, no energy is lost to the vacuum or light wouldn't be
able to travel millions of light-years.
The electric and magnetic fields are at right angles to each other AND
they are 90 degrees out of phase. You need an R in an LRC circuit to
make it less than 90 degrees. Getting rid of the R is what superconducting
research is all about, and why we use big fat copper wires in electric
motors with big fat Farads next to 'em instead of little skinny tungsten
wires that we use in light bulbs.
Then some drunken moron on a binge from academia comes along as
says we have it all wrong because he doesn't like it?
Oh wait.. you can't help being fuckin' stupid, can you?
fuckin' ([imbecile] *[moron] * [cretin] * [schoolmarm])^3
Benj
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> > Lets start with #1, shall we? While it's true that the electric and
> > magnetic fields are at right angles to each other, they are NOT 90
> > degrees out of phase.
> > =============================================
> > Let's stop with #1, shall we?
> > Idiot^2.
> >http://tinyurl.com/nz7l3n
> > Better yet, fuckin' ([imbecile] *[moron] * [cretin]^2)
>
> You think there is a "power factor" of 90 degrees on TEM plane waves
> in a vacuum?
> ==============================================
> Don't be silly, no energy is lost to the vacuum or light wouldn't be
> able to travel millions of light-years.
So you are saying that TEM waves in space do NOT have E and B 90
degrees out of phase?
> The electric and magnetic fields are at right angles to each other AND
> they are 90 degrees out of phase.
And now you say they ARE 90 degrees out of phase?
> You need an R in an LRC circuit to
> make it less than 90 degrees. Getting rid of the R is what superconducting
> research is all about, and why we use big fat copper wires in electric
> motors with big fat Farads next to 'em instead of little skinny tungsten
> wires that we use in light bulbs.
Yes, E and B in an LRC circuit are shifted in phase and the phase
shift does depend on R. So? The point is this is NOT the situation
with waves in space.
> Then some drunken moron on a binge from academia comes along as
> says we have it all wrong because he doesn't like it?
Sorry, I don't drink and don't work for academia.
> Oh wait.. you can't help being fuckin' stupid, can you?
> fuckin' ([imbecile] *[moron] * [cretin] * [schoolmarm])^3
And I've never taught classes.
So which is it? Are E and B 90 degrees out of phase in radio waves or
not? Make up your mind.
Jonah Thomas
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote:
> > "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> > You think there is a "power factor" of 90 degrees on TEM plane waves
> > in a vacuum?
> > ==============================================
> > Don't be silly, no energy is lost to the vacuum or light wouldn't be
> > able to travel millions of light-years.
>
> So you are saying that TEM waves in space do NOT have E and B 90
> degrees out of phase?
>
> > The electric and magnetic fields are at right angles to each other
> > AND they are 90 degrees out of phase.
>
> And now you say they ARE 90 degrees out of phase?
They are 90 degrees out of phase in space, not in time.
> > You need an R in an LRC circuit to
> > make it less than 90 degrees. Getting rid of the R is what
> > superconducting research is all about, and why we use big fat copper
> > wires in electric motors with big fat Farads next to 'em instead of
> > little skinny tungsten wires that we use in light bulbs.
>
> Yes, E and B in an LRC circuit are shifted in phase and the phase
> shift does depend on R. So? The point is this is NOT the situation
> with waves in space.
I've run into this with Androcles and put it aside because it did not
affect the current topics we were trying to get clear. I believed just
as he did before I looked at the details. If you start with electric
circuits it's obvious they should be out of phase, and only natural to
suppose they should be out of phase in the same dimension since that's
what you've dealt with before. Androcles is a sharp thinker even if he
has this one blind spot.
Bill Miller
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message
>
<snip>
> Nobody ever taught me the voltage across a capacitor in an RC
> network can *never* exceed the supply voltage, even if some American
> idiot taught you that.
>
You seem to be saying either,
1. Someone taught you that the voltage across a capacitor *can* exceed the
supply voltage. In that case, I applaud the perspicacity of your instructor.
But my experience in the USA, Canada, UK, Latin America, France Germany,
Italy, Australia, HK and Japan (areas where I have interacted professionally
with physicists & engineers) has led me to generalize that everyone
worldwide is taught the same, erroneous pap that I learned from the "idiots"
at UC Berkeley.
OR
2. You have never recived instruction in the performance of RC circuits.
If the answer is (1) then I would appreciate information as to how you might
have learned this. (I am not challenging your education. I am just *very*
surprised that you seem to know about this subtle characteristic of
"capacitors.")
If the answer is (2) then I do not care what your opinion is.
All the best,
Bill
Bill Miller
<snip>
>>Both of the above can be shown to be false for specific capacitor
>>configurations. And they are easy (and kinda fun) to model in SPICE.
>
> Have you come across a thing called a 'time domain reflectometer'. We
> found out a lot using that in the 70s when emitter coupled logic was in
> its infancy. It gives an incredibly sharp edge and then displays all the
> reflections along the route it is propagating along. It allows you to
> check how constant the impedance of a transmission line is, how good a
> connector is and what sort of capacitors are best at absorbing high
> frequencies as in de-coupling - not necessarily the ones you might think.
> At high frequency a supply track is inductive and a good high frequency
> capacitor is liable to 'tune' it while a lossey capacitor will absorb the
> energy. That was before multi-layer boards. Now you can have a nice
> 'supply plain'.
>
> John Kennaugh
Initially, I calculated the performance using Catt's concept. Then an
associate that runs SPICE better than I put together a model. Finally
confirmed with TDR.
And TDR is really useful for figuring out what anomalies exist and where
they are located. Kinda neat when you find a small solder blob exactly where
the TDR said something bad was happening.
Bill
Androcles
On Sep 24, 7:36 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote:
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> > Lets start with #1, shall we? While it's true that the electric and
> > magnetic fields are at right angles to each other, they are NOT 90
> > degrees out of phase.
> > =============================================
> > Let's stop with #1, shall we?
> > Idiot^2.
> >http://tinyurl.com/nz7l3n
> > Better yet, fuckin' ([imbecile] *[moron] * [cretin]^2)
>
> You think there is a "power factor" of 90 degrees on TEM plane waves
> in a vacuum?
> ==============================================
> Don't be silly, no energy is lost to the vacuum or light wouldn't be
> able to travel millions of light-years.
So you are saying that TEM waves in space do NOT have E and B 90
degrees out of phase?
Don't be silly, no energy is lost to the vacuum or light wouldn't be
able to travel millions of light-years.
> The electric and magnetic fields are at right angles to each other AND
> they are 90 degrees out of phase.
And now you say they ARE 90 degrees out of phase?
==============================================
I just fuckin' said that, can't you read?
Unless you have some empirical evidence to offer for your
ridiculous assertion to contrary, your whim for it to be otherwise,
you inability to comprehend Faraday's E = -dB/dt as show here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_functions
your inability to comprehend Euler's equation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_formula
you stubborn refusal to be fuckin' sensible merely because
your want to insist "they are NOT 90 degrees out of phase",
then you can go fuck yourself, you stupid babbling crank.
The electric and magnetic fields of a photon are 90 degrees
out of phase. Get used to it.
==============================================
> You need an R in an LRC circuit to
> make it less than 90 degrees. Getting rid of the R is what superconducting
> research is all about, and why we use big fat copper wires in electric
> motors with big fat Farads next to 'em instead of little skinny tungsten
> wires that we use in light bulbs.
Yes, E and B in an LRC circuit are shifted in phase and the phase
shift does depend on R. So? The point is this is NOT the situation
with waves in space.
===============================================
Because you say so or you read it in a book somewhere... produce
the evidence or go fuck yourself, you are a babbling wanker.
> Then some drunken moron on a binge from academia comes along as
> says we have it all wrong because he doesn't like it?
Sorry, I don't drink and don't work for academia.
===========================================
Then you are simply insane, there can be no other cause for
your ridiculous assertion.
> Oh wait.. you can't help being fuckin' stupid, can you?
> fuckin' ([imbecile] *[moron] * [cretin] * [schoolmarm])^3
And I've never taught classes.
===========================================
As cha-cha-hahahanson would say, thank the load for that.
So which is it? Are E and B 90 degrees out of phase in radio waves or
not? Make up your mind.
=========================================
My mind was made up when I read about Faraday's E = -dB/dt.
He did NOT write E =-B or E(t) = -B(t) or dE/dt = -dB/dt as
you seem to imagine and fail to understand.
E and B are 90 degrees out of phase in radio waves!
If it were otherwise then both would be zero at the same
instant and energy would not be conserved, it would
wink out of existence.
E and B are 90 degrees out of phase in radio waves!
Never have I said otherwise. Got it? Try and trap it
in the space between your ears.
E and B are 90 degrees out of phase in radio waves!
One causes the other, energy is conserved.
sin(t) = -dcos(t)/dt, it does NOT equal cos(t) or -cos(t).
cos(t) = dsin(t)/dt
-sin(t) = dcos(t)/dt
-cos(t) = -dsin(t)/dt
sin(t) = -dcos(t)/dt
Repeat:
cos(t) = dsin(t)/dt
-sin(t) = dcos(t)/dt
-cos(t) = -dsin(t)/dt
sin(t) = -dcos(t)/dt
Got it?
If not, learn elementary trig and calc and the first law of thermodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_functions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sine_cosine_plot.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_formula
Bill Miller
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message
>
>> Bill
>
> I understand the janitor was fired for mopping the toilet bowl with
> a burger bun and then ate the evidence with fries, ketchup and a
> healthy dose of salt. It wasn't his lunch break so he had to be
> dismissed.
And for Benj.
Benj told me that his boss, the janitor, was a goof-off that didn't
understand EM. Now that he's gone, maybe Benj will be promoted to janitor
and I can get his OLD job!
Androcles
I don't need an instructor to measure the voltage at the mid-point of
a resonant series LC circuit.
a-----((((()----b-----||------c
I *know* bc exceeds ac, 180 degrees out of phase. Theoretically
it rises to infinity but in practice there is always some resistance in
the circuit or the capacitor pops because its breakdown voltage
is exceeded.
For an RC circuit,
a-----/\/\/\/\/\/----b-----||------c
merely allow the voltage across bc to reach the value across ac
(charge the capacitor) and then reverse the polarity across ac
and measure bc before the cap discharges.
It's called voltage doubling and you can block the discharge
of the cap with a diode.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_multiplier
If you disagree then I do not care what your opinion is.
Actually I don't care what your opinion is even if you agree,
it won't prevent voltage multipliers working.
Androcles
"Jonah Thomas" <jeth...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20090924101139.7...@gmail.com...
> Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote:
>> > "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
>
>> > You think there is a "power factor" of 90 degrees on TEM plane waves
>> > in a vacuum?
>> > ==============================================
>> > Don't be silly, no energy is lost to the vacuum or light wouldn't be
>> > able to travel millions of light-years.
>>
>> So you are saying that TEM waves in space do NOT have E and B 90
>> degrees out of phase?
>>
>> > The electric and magnetic fields are at right angles to each other
>> > AND they are 90 degrees out of phase.
>>
>> And now you say they ARE 90 degrees out of phase?
>
> They are 90 degrees out of phase in space, not in time.
BULLSHIT!
Androcles
squirting. I was in a Burger King in Binghamton NY once and ordered
a burger with no ketchup. It only took three attempts to not put ketchup
on my burger, the ketchup squirter guy was really industrious. I had
to yell really loudly "NO KETCHUP" as he held the squirter in his
hand poised ready to squirt red goo on the third burger.
He had a badge that read "Hello, I'm Ben", too. Perhaps he's the
same Binge Jocaby and wants to be the new janitor.
John Kennaugh
>Aside from an interest in history/psychology, why would anyone
>want to search/research for Maxwell's aether? It is a blind alley,
>I urge you not to go that way. By all means meet Gauss, Ampere
>and Faraday along the road, but don't turn left into Maxwell's
>cul-de-sac looking for original Scottish papers that have been
>translated into German.
>Why would Maxwell write an original paper in German?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell
You have your knickers in a twist my friend. "Maxwell Revisited" is an
article written by Ivor Catt. Ivor Catt translated his own article into
German and that was at one time on a now defunct website. He refers to
the diagram on that website - which you can manage without if you have
an imagination - to illustrate the text of his article.
I don't think anyone but you mentioned aether.
>
>I won't say "idiot", no point in stating the obvious.
--
John Kennaugh
Szczepan Białek
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote
news:ovMum.150320$Xh5....@newsfe01.ams2...
>
> > It's called voltage doubling and you can block the discharge
> of the cap with a diode.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_multiplier
Antennas are like the Kundt's tube. The voltage is the same like the
pressure. The pressure is also doubled. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundt's_tube
>
> If you disagree then I do not care what your opinion is.
> Actually I don't care what your opinion is even if you agree,
> it won't prevent voltage multipliers working.
But I care what your opinin is about the Acoustic analogy,
S*
Androcles
"Szczepan Bia�ek" <sz.b...@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:h9fu7p$8hg$1...@node1.news.atman.pl...
the sound pressure rises sufficiently to break windows.
It's no different to a speeding boat making pebbles on
the lakeshore or river bank move.
In the Kundt's tube air molecules are travelling in opposite
directions and meet at a node, doubling the pressure.
In the antenna it's the electrons that do that, but it is the LC
rather than the RC circuit that best models it.
http://www.thekeeser.com/Electronics%20info/measure_an_unknown_inductor.htm
Bill Miller
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message
>
> "Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:7i1dqvF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
> For an RC circuit,
>
> a-----/\/\/\/\/\/----b-----||------c
>
> merely allow the voltage across bc to reach the value across ac
> (charge the capacitor) and then reverse the polarity across ac
> and measure bc before the cap discharges.
> It's called voltage doubling and you can block the discharge
> of the cap with a diode.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_multiplier
>
> If you disagree then I do not care what your opinion is.
> Actually I don't care what your opinion is even if you agree,
> it won't prevent voltage multipliers working.
>
an inverter so that you can get whatever value that you wish across the
capacitor.
That is not what I was talking about.
And I don't care if you don't care if I don't care if...
All the best,
Bill
>
>
Bill Miller
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message
>
<snip>
> E and B are 90 degrees out of phase in radio waves!
> One causes the other, energy is conserved.
I'm sorry, but what you are describing is true for Longitudinal waves --
like those in water. EM (radio etc.) emissions are composed of Transverse
waves.
In a transverse wave in a "normal" medium -- like free space -- the E and B
components are in phase. Since they are in phase, there is no energy
exchange from one to the other.
They are both caused *simultaneously* by the flow of charges at the same
physical point.
In other words, an electromagnetic wave consists of two separate waves: an E
wave and an H wave.
Please feel free to call me an idiot (fucking is optional) as well as a
moron or a cretin. These pejoratives will not modify the factual nature of
the above statements.
All the best,
Bill
Androcles
>
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message
> news:D7Mum.182214$I07.1...@newsfe04.ams2...
>>
> <snip>
>> E and B are 90 degrees out of phase in radio waves!
>> One causes the other, energy is conserved.
> <snip>
Gladly. Always pleased to provide a snip when requested.
There ya go, mission accomplished.
Anything else I can snip for you?
Androcles
>
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message
> news:ovMum.150320$Xh5....@newsfe01.ams2...
>>
>> "Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:7i1dqvF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
> <snip>>
>> For an RC circuit,
>>
>> a-----/\/\/\/\/\/----b-----||------c
>>
>> merely allow the voltage across bc to reach the value across ac
>> (charge the capacitor) and then reverse the polarity across ac
>> and measure bc before the cap discharges.
>> It's called voltage doubling and you can block the discharge
>> of the cap with a diode.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_multiplier
>>
>> If you disagree then I do not care what your opinion is.
>> Actually I don't care what your opinion is even if you agree,
>> it won't prevent voltage multipliers working.
>>
> Well... lets add a few MORE components and make the simple RC circuit into
> an inverter so that you can get whatever value that you wish across the
> capacitor.
There ya go. Who said it couldn't be done?
<snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip>
Oops, nothing left.
Do not bother to reply, I shall snip it first.
Bill Miller
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message
Secret agents used to do that during the War. The technique was called "Burn
Before Reading."
Kept the Nazis at bay for the entire war.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bill Miller
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message
"There are none so blind,
As those that will not see!"
All the best,
Bill
Don Kelly
--
"Don Kelly" <dh...@shawcross.ca> wrote in message
news:UZCum.12091$tG1....@newsfe22.iad...
>
>
> --
>
> "Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
> news:5e4d53b6-63ae-46f3...@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 22, 11:40 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...@shawcross.ca> wrote:
>
>
> As to the questions-
> #1 Poynting points the way- I would suggest that there is a double
> frequency power component which has a 0 time average. This is somewhat of
> an intuitive answer.
--
I now have the problem that the described wave is apparently a TEM wave for
which E and H are 90 degrees out of phase. Since the E and H components are
related by root(muo/epso) which is real, it would appear that the 90 degree
phase shift is a wee problem. thrown into the picture. I should have spotted
this before.
Androcles
Androcles
>
> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message
> news:l2Qum.117170$tM2.1...@newsfe23.ams2...
>>
>> "Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> news:7i1u2eF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote in message
>>> news:D7Mum.182214$I07.1...@newsfe04.ams2...
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> E and B are 90 degrees out of phase in radio waves!
>>>> One causes the other, energy is conserved.
>>> <snip>
>>
>> Gladly. Always pleased to provide a snip when requested.
>> There ya go, mission accomplished.
>> Anything else I can snip for you?
>>
>>
<snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip>
Bill Miller
If you can find a diagram that "illustrates" a TEM wave, you'll note that
the two waves are "mechanically" at 90 degrees, but they are in temporal
phase.
The Field Theory book that I use is by Guru and Hiziroglu and the
illustration there is figure 8.3 on page 312.
In other words, when the E field is maximum, so is the H field. And *that*
indicates that neither one can possibly be "causing" the other.
There are much more rigorous ways of proving this, but this should do for
starters.
All the best,
Bill
Androcles
<snip><snip><snip><snip><snip><snip>
> If you can find a diagram that "illustrates" a TEM wave, you'll note that
> the two waves are "mechanically" at 90 degrees, but they are in temporal
> phase.
Really?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif
If both E and M are zero at the same instant, energy is not conserved.
Eat shit, 10,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
Don Kelly
--
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:efa75854-a215-4a6e...@g6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 24, 12:56 am, "Don Kelly" <d...@shawcross.ca> wrote:
> As to the questions-
> #1 Poynting points the way- I would suggest that there is a double
> frequency
> power component which has a 0 time average. This is somewhat of an
> intuitive
> answer.
What you say is true. The Poynting vector shows that the wave is
transporting energy. However the essence of the question has to do
with whether E and B lag each other by 90 degrees (they do not) and
whether or not wave propagation is the result of energy ping-ponging
back and forth between E an B. (it does not because they are in
phase).
------------
I have already sent an additional note recognizing this.
------------------
> #2 False: there is no such thing as an induced current. Faraday's Law
> deals
> with induced voltage.
No, that isn't the idea. Induction is where an electric field is
generated in space. That field can produce forces on free charges (as
in wires) to create a current. Actually we talk about "emf" which
represents potential that is the integral of the field with a test
charge over distance. A tricky aspect is that this field is not
conservative. Faraday's law deals with all these things.
----
And Faraday's law deals with induced emf's (or voltages) . Certainly the
field is not conservative ( this is something discussed several months ago.
Recognizing what you say, consider a nearly closed loop of 0 impedance and
close it with a resistance in parallel with as close to an ideal voltmeter
as possible. Vary the resistance and plot the voltage and current
(calculable) against the resistance (yes corrections for meter resistance
can be made) and note that as the resistance increases, the voltage remains
constant --in other words behaving like an ideal voltage source. It is true
that the act of measurement does involve a current but, from a working point
of view, Faraday's law fits quite well for any practical purpose and fits
observed data.
Where the problem comes in, is I said that it is a CHANGING MAGNETIC
FIELD that creates this induced E field. This is flat out wrong.
Faraday's law may be a true relationship, but it's NOT a causal
relationship. The actual true mechanism is that a changing current
(charges) creates BOTH a magnetic field AND the induced electric field
that can produce the induced current in wires etc. Both the magnetic
field AND the electric fields travel away from the changing source
current at the speed of light and hence are simultaneous and therefore
cannot "cause" one another.
---------------
Certainly that is correct- moving charges produce the magnetic field - But,
again, the magnetic field can be expressed in terms of the moving charges
and, while not causal, is that for practical purposes, for physicists as
well as engineers, expressing B as a factor, in some cases, of some unknown
charge moving at an unknown velocity (and, at least in one example,
involving a v cross E relationship) is rather inconvenient. Again, it is
the changing magnetic field that is observable and related to the induced E
field. One coud also say that a battery produces an emf because of some
(known) chemical reaction but we don't actually deal with the chemistry
involved in dealing with the application of a battery unless there is some
overriding reason to do so. Ditto with the application of EM theory in the
case of the magnetic field.
---------------------
Thus, Answer is "false", but not for the reason you say.
> #3 False: any emf induced will depend on the rate of change of the flux
> enclosed. Given that, Maxwell's appropriate equation is usually written
> (in the integral form) with the time derivative term inside the integral
> but
> can be written with the time derivative outside the integral allowing for
> coil area changes - this is the basis for taking the circuit form for
> inductances as d(Li)/dt allowing for speed voltage (L changing) as well as
> transformer voltage (i changing) in modelling electric machines- and the
> speed voltage (often due to changes in the effective area of the coil) is
> dominant in most machines. Guess what-it coincides with reality!
So you are saying the statement is true? Nope. Wrong. The statement is
usually true but not ALWAYS true. You sort of have the idea but not
quite. It has to do with HOW you change the amount of flux enclosed
within the circuit. If you have a wire loop and just grab it and bend
it to a new outline, indeed the changing flux will always relate to an
emf created in the circuit. On the other hand if the circuit changes
shape with a SWITCHING scheme, you find that great flux changes can
occur but there will be ZERO emf induced in the circuit. For an
example see Feynman Lectures Vol II Section 17-2 "exceptions to the
flux rule". Especially look at the rocking plate apparatus Fig. 17-3.
Feynman doesn't really explain how this apparatus "works" but if you
think about it carefully you'll see it is a disguised "switching"
device. Switching devices do not follow the "flux rule", because a
requirement of Maxwell's Equations is that functions be continuous and
differentiable. Switching setups are not.
----
and how does one build such an ideal switching machine that has no
transition period and no radiation? In other words, Maxwell's Equations as
well as their approximation, circuit theory, fail mathematically in such
situations (although there are ways around this- all mathematical).
The ideal switch also fails- in implementation.
I do not have Feynman so I cannot look up your references (and the nearest
library that may have them is 200Km away. Do you have a reference on line
to such a switched circuit?
Anyhow, thanks for the information, I have heard some of it before but it
is good to get a refresher and some new tid-bits
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics_o>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics.electromag
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: What is your EM crankosity?
>
> "Bill Miller" <billmil...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:7i28trF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>> If you can find a diagram that "illustrates" a TEM wave, you'll note that
>> the two waves are "mechanically" at 90 degrees, but they are in temporal
>> phase.
>
> Really?
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/Photon.gif
>
> If both E and M are zero at the same instant, energy is not conserved.
>
I have two comments. Since Androcles will immediately <snip> this, I am
addressing this -- instead -- to any that are interested in understanding
more about EM.
1. In my previous post, I referenced a diagram in a respected textbook
recommended to me by a UK EM Professor and friend. Androcles replied with a
diagram of unknown antecedents that came from his own website. I wonder
which of the two might have higher credibility?
2. Androcles is missing the point when he says (from above) that, "If both E
and M are zero at the same instant, energy is not conserved."
The point that Androcles is missing is that, at the time that E and M are
zero, *there is no energy to conserve.* "E and M are zero" means that at
that specific time, and location, *no energy whatsoever is present.*
This lack of understanding is, I suspect, based on one of a physics
student's first encounters with oscillation. This is the classic spring with
a weight. In this embodiment, we pull the weight down, thus storing
potential energy in the spring. We let go, and the weight rebounds gaining
kinetic energy until gravity pulls it down. This swapping of kinetic for
potential energy is essential for the weight to bounce up and down. From
this we learn about *one* way to generate a sine wave.
The EM case is different. Although we usually look at an EM wave as a pair
of sinusoidal waveforms (like what we get with the idealized spring) it is
important to understand that an EM field is *not* oscillatory. Both the E
and the H fields are independent, and are caused by and at the same source,
at the same time.
OK...If the Spring's sinusoidal waveform comes about because of initial
conditions and a swapping of energy between potential and kinetic energy
sources, where does the energy come from to establish an EM wave's
sinusoidal nature and propel the EM wave outward? It comes from a
"transmitter" that continuously feeds new energy into the "antenna" so that
an EM wave is emitted into space.
This is not very complicated. All that is required is to think about the
difference between a wave whose existence depends on the "swapping" of
energy to sustain it, and a wave whose existence depends on an external
power source of some sort.
Here, Androcles, let me save you the effort:
<snip> <snip> <snip> <snip> <snip> <snip> <snip> <snip>
All the best,
Bill