Heaviside's & Catt's energy current follows conductors. How?

[crawler]

There are at least 20 instances on this forum relating to Catt's stuff, especially to The Catt Question, & sometimes relating to the ensuing The Catt Anomaly (arizing from the conflicting ignorant mainstream answers to The Catt Question)(one group of ignoramuses being westerners, the other being southerners).

I dont think that i hav seen anyone ask how & why duzz ......
(1) a Heaviside slab of E by H energy current follow a conductor (obstructor) or pair of conductors,
(2) the slab bend at a sharp bend,
(3) a portion of the slab reflect at (i) a sharp bend, & at (ii) a change in conductor properties & at (iii) a change in the insulation (if any).

This stuff keeps me awake nights. The answer will involve photaenos. Slabs consist of photaenos. All em radiation iz photaenos, not photons. In particular the answer will involve photaeno-drag, where photaenos are slowed by other photaenos fighting for the limited use of the aether. Photaenos emanate from the elementary particles (electrons quarks etc) in the say copper & say plastic. The extra drag on the nearside to the copper bends the slab's progress. Its a bit like photon diffraction, & photon bending near the Sun. Photonic diffraction is very powerfull. Photaeno diffraction might be even more powerfull, hencely a slab follows sharp bends. Thats a start. Still thinking. I kood add.

(4) What exactly is a slab?
(5) How is a slab perpetual (allbeit praps broken into smaller perpetual slabs). Clue -- photaenos are perpetual. Photaenos might be slowed but they remain photaenos, propagating to infinity. Photaenos annihilate aether, hencely photaenos hav mass & momentum, & can exist & act independently of their parent photons. Photaenos propagate at c in the far field, & at at least 5c in the nearfield. Photaenos are an excitation of aether. Magnetic fields are an excitation of photaenos. Electric fields are another form of excitation. Still thinking.

[Sci-Phy]

Think out of the box.
If electric current is not the flow of charges then simply Catt's anomaly does not exist.
http://www.sci-phy.ca/papers/Electricit ... rrent.html
The current not flows in the wires, it flows in between.
Maybe conductors are very good reflectors of such current.

Cheers

[crawler]

Think out of the box.
If electric current is not the flow of charges then simply Catt's anomaly does not exist.
http://www.sci-phy.ca/papers/Electricit ... rrent.html
The current not flows in the wires, it flows in between.
Maybe conductors are very good reflectors of such current. Cheers

Thanx. I allready had that article. I agree. Me myself i prefer to write nett rather than net.
Az u say, current flows outside wires not inside. Energy current iz an E by H slab of photaenos.

I havnt re-read Heaviside & Catt & Bishop, eg the death of voltage & amps etc stuff, & i think the death of charge.
Good conductors hav lots of loose electrons. That suggests a feedback mechanizm whereby free-ish electrons absorb energy whilst re-acting to the EH slab of energy current. Absorbing energy iz in effect the slowing of photaenos. Which iz in effect the diffraction of photaenos. Hencely good conductors bend the EH slab, which follows the good conductor. Heaviside had the correct idea, a good conductor iz indeed a good obstructor.

So, it aint anything to do with reflexion, its all to do with diffraction. However reflexion iz indeed a photaeno thing, praps in its own way it iz an extreme case of diffraction (an extreme case of obstruction if u like).

Getting back to your article. The time taken for the bulb to glow depends on the location of the switch, not the location of the battery etc. Az soon az the switch iz closed a nett energy current flows from the switch to the bulb (detector). Its a kind of faux IAAAD. Hencely a time of less than one nanosecond. Catt explains. But u know that stuff allready.

[crawler]

Parallel wires forming a DC circuit repel.
Here somehow the anti-parallel compass norths repel. The photaenos are say little tornadoes that point the same way (the ups & downs are the same). If magnetizm is due to a tornadic vortex then the tornadoes oppose where they touch. Opposition praps means repulsion.
If the tornadic vortexes accord (ie if the compass norths are parallel) then the tornadoes attract.

I think i saw a youtube footage showing such repulsion & attraction re a pair of spinning drums in water. Praps water haz some similar properties to aether (photaenos being an excitation of aether).

Anyhow, i reckon that photaenos do not like other photaenos, they karnt share the same space, they karnt share the same aether, ie aether aint much good at multi-tasking, ie photaenos fight for the use of aether, & are slowed due to photaeno congestion, ie giving a slowing of propagation of the photaeno, ie what i call photaeno-drag, which feeds back to the main central helix body of the parent photon, slowing photons near mass (diffraction), slowing photons in mass (refraction).

But the feedback to the central helix only happens if the photaeno iz attached. For free photons (light) photaenos are only attached for a short time, & they detach at the rear when the photon haz passed.
For confined photons (electrons quarks etc) the photaenos are attached forever, the photon having formed a continuous loop, ie a confined photon haz no ends. Hencely the feedback mechanism is very strong. A strong force, in the near field it iz the Strong Force.
Still thinking.

[crawler]

A spinning disc magnet haz the same magnetic field when not spinning. Interesting.

If photaenos emanate (from a point on a spinning magnet) at a certain point in space then praps they radiate (in a straight line) from that point.
If the atom causing the emanation moovs then praps new photaenos form & emanate from points along its route, ie detached little tornado-ettes. Or its the same old photaeno emanating, the photaeno thusly forming a slantindicular tornado, allways attached to that atom.

Anyhow, whether slantindicular, the radiation iz allways from a point in space, not from the mooving atom.
Hencely the magnetic field iz due to the radiation vector not the slantindicularity vector.

A reminder. Photaenos hav mass & momentum, hencely detached photaenos can act. They dont havtabe attached to act. But in the nearfield attached photaenos can transmit a very strong action from the very massive central helix of the free photon or confined photon. And this action iz very strong very close to an electron etc.
Still thinking.

Another reminder. Photaenos can propagate at 5c in the nearfield (Gasser). Actually that there Gasser nearfield is say 2m. Hencely in the proper near field (less than a halfwave) photaenos might propagate at a million c.

[crawler]

Think out of the box.
If electric current is not the flow of charges then simply Catt's anomaly does not exist.
http://www.sci-phy.ca/papers/Electricit ... rrent.html
The current not flows in the wires, it flows in between.
Maybe conductors are very good reflectors of such current.Cheers

A reminder, its the The Catt Question. The The Catt Anomaly arizes from the The Catt Question. The anomaly iz that standard science ignoramuses fall into one of two groups, the westerners & the southerners, both being of course wrong. So reference to the The Catt Anomaly should only be in the context of analyzing the flawed responses from standard science to the The Catt Question.

Re the energy current flowing tween the out & back wires, i suspekt that it flows all round too. Thusly i suspekt that placing insulation on just the outside bits of the wires would affect the E by H slab -- it would be retarded along the outside, & praps retarded a little along the inside (but not by az much).

Anyhow re good conductors being good Heaviside obstructors, i suspect that free electrons are the key. Somehow free electrons introduce a kind of inelasticity that robs energy (speed) from photaenos, compared to the more chemically fixed lattice electrons found in poor conductors (poor obstructors) & their dearth of free-ish electrons. So here standard science haz some good ideas for a change.

[crawler]

Re the propagation of a new slab along a pair of wires.
We know that the slab moovs along at c/R, R being the refractiv index of the surrounding insulation or air etc.
But i havnt seen any mention that the leading edge of the slab iz on an angle, which it must be so, koz the electric field propagates from wire to adjacent wire at much more than c/R. If wire to wire iz say 5c & along the wires iz say c then the angle of the leading edge might be 1 in 5, ie allmost square, square being 0 in 5 (needing an infinite speed wire to wire).

And i sayd a new slab, but there must be a pair of new slabs, mirror images, their effects adding (or subtracting praps). One angled leading edge must cross the other, halfway tween wires (all else being equal).

[crawler]

Ok, so far so good. I sayd that a slab is reflected at changes in obstructor (eg bends). How?

Why duznt a bit of the slab just keep going straight, to be lost praps for ever, or to somehow later blunder back into that obstructor or some other obstructor. If most of the slab goes around the bend ok, due to diffraction, then the other bit must go straight ahead or allmost straight. How would it turn 180 deg?

I can imagin a slab reflecting straight back off a solid wall, but i karnt imagin a slab reflecting back off the back of a wall, ie reflecting back off the wall to air interface (or the copper to air interface). To reflect off the copper to air interface the slab would hav to be inside the copper in the first place, but we know that it aint in the copper.

Still thinking.

[crawler]

I sayd that a slab is reflected at changes in obstructor, what about a change in dia of the wire?

Praps a change in dia of wire iz a bend of sorts, ie the surface of the copper bends out say if the wire gets thicker.
But why would a thickening of the wire(s) rezult in reflexion of the slab?
I suppoze that a thickening gives more obstruction,ie more of the obstructor.

Thinning of the wire would logically rezult in reflexion. But thinning gives less obstruction, ie less of the obstructor.
There's a major contradiction here. Still thinking.

[Sci-Phy]

There is no switch in my experiment.
Current flows from generator to the load through 100 m of wire.
Although the generator could be considered as sort of switch, but this one is before wire!
There are no free electrons in metals.
Simple example is resistance. The resistance is inversely proportional to the area.
There is no explanation for this fact in textbooks by the way. The number of electrons per sqf is the same.
Looks like the more electrons involved, the less distance they have to travel and less resistance metal has.
Take a look at Chromium vs Manganese.
Number of free electrons = 1 vs 2.
Density = 7.19 vs 7.21
Obviously Manganese should have roughly twice less resistance because the number of free electrons twice more.
In fact Chromium r=125 nanoOhm*m, Manganese r=1440 nOhm*m = 11.5 times more! Where all this "free electrons"?
Why gaseous metals do not conduct electric current? (I am not talking about plasma)
Electric current is phenomenon very similar to heat transfer.
Maxwell wrote that the motion of the heat could be perfectly described by 1/RR force, but nobody consider heat as the flow of "heat charges".

Cheers

[crawler]

There is no switch in my experiment.
Current flows from generator to the load through 100 m of wire.
Although the generator could be considered as sort of switch, but this one is before wire!
There are no free electrons in metals.
Simple example is resistance. The resistance is inversely proportional to the area.
There is no explanation for this fact in textbooks by the way. The number of electrons per sqf is the same.
Looks like the more electrons involved, the less distance they have to travel and less resistance metal has.
Take a look at Chromium vs Manganese.
Number of free electrons = 1 vs 2.
Density = 7.19 vs 7.21
Obviously Manganese should have roughly twice less resistance because the number of free electrons twice more.
In fact Chromium r=125 nanoOhm*m, Manganese r=1440 nOhm*m = 11.5 times more! Where all this "free electrons"?
Why gaseous metals do not conduct electric current? (I am not talking about plasma)
Electric current is phenomenon very similar to heat transfer.
Maxwell wrote that the motion of the heat could be perfectly described by 1/RR force, but nobody consider heat as the flow of "heat charges".Cheers

Yes i am googling some of that stuff. Interesting. I notice that the ohm is based on the resistance to current flowing throo a 1m cube, ie for an area of 1m by 1m, whereaz it shood be based on the circumference which iz 4m. But if u double the Xsection area of the cube u allso double the circumference, hencely the skoolkid verzion of standard science that resistance iz based on Xsection area passes most tests ok. And skoolkids then go to university & are turned into Einsteinologists who perpetuate the cycle of ignorance.

Google says that conductivity~resistance iz due mainly to having only one valence electron (silver iron nickel chromium) in the outer shell, rather than valence electrons in other shells. Alltho i am starting to get confuzed with magnetic properties now.
Hencely my photaeno theory says that metals with only one outer valence electron must be good obstructors. How so? How duzz a single electron rob more energy from the slab az the electron iz bumped along from atom to atom than duzz say a pair of valence electrons?
It appears to me that a good conductor needs free electrons, & theze are bumped along from atom to atom, but that a single such electron robs more energy from the slab (photaenos). Thusly somehow a single electron mooving along a wire exhibits less ohmic resistance than a pair of electrons mooving along a wire. Yet it duzz this by being a better obstructor (ie giving more photaeno-drag)(ie giving more photaeno diffraction)(more diffraction makes the slab follow a wire better). It all still sounds contradictory.
Still thinking.

[Sci-Phy]

Photaenos can propagate at 5c in the nearfield (Gasser).

I don't think Gasser found something new.
The speed of sound in air is 330 m/s.
But the detonation rate of TNT is 6900 m/s.
When explosion happened, the shock wave appeared with the same speed, which is about 20 Mach.
Nobody saying it is some new particles - it is the same old sound wave just moving at higher speed.
Shock wave decay at some distance from the source, starting ordinary sound wave.
The experiment of Gasser looks exactly the same to me.
Shock wave by big spark and then at certain distance speed decay and continue with the speed of light.

Cheers

[crawler]

Photaenos can propagate at 5c in the nearfield (Gasser).

I don't think Gasser found something new.
The speed of sound in air is 330 m/s.
But the detonation rate of TNT is 6900 m/s.
When explosion happened, the shock wave appeared with the same speed, which is about 20 Mach.
Nobody saying it is some new particles - it is the same old sound wave just moving at higher speed.
Shock wave decay at some distance from the source, starting ordinary sound wave.
The experiment of Gasser looks exactly the same to me.
Shock wave by big spark and then at certain distance speed decay and continue with the speed of light.Cheers

Yes. But in such a sound-detonation-shockpulse scenario Einsteinologists would say that nothing can go at more than Mach1, & in an em scenario say that nothing can go at more than 1c (whether pulse or wave).

In an em scenario there might indeed be a shock-pulse equivalent where em can go at more than 1c in the nearfield at least. I dont know how we (& Gasser & Co) can hav speeds of 5c in a nearfield (if u call 2000 mm nearfield).
I think that standard Einsteinian science would explain this 5c az being an illusion due to transverse effects at less than a halfwave which settles down to an illusion of 1c in the farfield as a longiwave or something.
But i reckon that there must be some kind of good reason which we havnt found yet. Photaenos must be able to moov or propagate at more than 1c, or transmit magnetics at more than 1c, in nearfield. Its a mystery.

One possibility iz the pseudo IAAAD found by Catt & others in electric circuits. Catt found that there woz a Heaviside slab mooving up & down a conductor at all times, & that this slab woz allready reflecting at the switch when the switch woz switched, giving an apparent IAAAD.

The same kind of effect might exist with em. Gasser's primary spark & Hertz's primary spark might hav been preceded by a Heaviside E by H (they say)(photaeno i say) slab (mooving at 1c) that was allready most of the way to Hertz's sparking detector & Gasser's oscilloscopes.

The primary spark iz in effekt Catt's switch. And there must be a Heaviside slab reflecting at the primary gap at all times, or at least on one side of the gap (i dont remember the exakt circuitry), & such a slab haz 3 dimensions, & propagates in all 3 dimensions at all times (at least after the batteries start to do their thing).

Yes i think i might be onto something. That there 5c in Gasser's X might be due to the distance from a switch to the primary spark gap, relativ to the dist from the primary spark to the detector (which would involve some kind of angular hypotenuse in the nearfield). I must hav a re-read of Gasser's X (& Hertz's X).

I know that Catt woz carefull to take a long slow time to bring hiz battery on line, uzing a one meg rezistor or something, to giv him two nice shaped slabs to start with. Gasser & Hertz didnt i think do any such trickle charging (they uzed zero foreplay), & got slabs with a very ugly shape (& suffered premature ejaculation)(or zero orgasm praps).

[kmcook]

Crawler,

Do your readers a favour, give up the stupid spelling!
Inconsistent and distracting.

Your 'phonetic spelling campaign' is misplaced here.

.

[crawler]

Crawler, Do your readers a favour, give up the stupid spelling! Inconsistent and distracting. Your 'phonetic spelling campaign' is misplaced here..

It aint popular, & i am wearing out my z & k keys, so i will tone it down some.