You seem to be unaware of how classical lines without a suitable load work and you attribute new effects to your line when, apart from negative R, it is commonplace in all lines.
I left school at age 16 and went straight into work as a Scientific Assistance at a research establishment. My entire working life of 49 years was in electronics and electromagnetics during which I schooled myself on General Relativity in order to understand some of the weirder aspects of EM. I rose to the giddy heights of Chief Systems Engineer in the division I worked for. So I guess my knowledge of how classical lines work is at least as good as yours and possible better. I was deeply involved in near-field radar as proximity detectors for shells, bombs, missiles, torpedoes and mines, so I understand the difference between far-field (where the E and H vectors are in space quadrature but in time phase) and near-field (where the E and H vectors ore not in phase). The far-field has the so-called wave impedance of 377 Ohms and that is a real resistance, not a reactance. The near-field has an impedance that varies with distance from the transmitting antenna; for the classical small electric dipole the impedance rises as you get nearer to the antenna and for the small magnetic antenna it falls (small meaning antenna dimensions smaller then a wavelength). In both cases the resistance value changes while the reactance value rises so that close to the antenna the wave impedance is either capacitive reactance of inductive reactance. The classical delay line that you and most people are familiar with has a characteristic impedance that is dominantly resistive. I can find no reference to anyone with a knowledge and experience of a delay line that has a reactive impedance. I am sure that you have no such experience.
Transmission line theory readily accepts a reactive line impedance and when you look into this it predicts a negative input resistance when the line is terminated with a capacitance. Now you might argue that such a line with its mathematically imaginary impedance is actually imaginary, it doesn’t exist in real life, it is only in one’s mind. You have not presented that argument, you have continually claimed that any line must be modelled by actual L, C and R components and these cannot result in a negative resistance. I have argued that magnetic field propagation along a core or a pair of cores IS a transmission line having reactive line impedance, and that is something that has been overlooked in science. It can NOT be modelled by the usual LC network. With my self-taught methods of solving problems in the magnetic domain I have perhaps muddied the waters by using an LC network where the Ls and Cs are magnetic ones relating flux to mmf in the same manner that actual Ls and Cs relate current to voltage. If that has created confusion I apologise.
Wave propagation along a core has been looked at and it is known as magnetic viscosity. Its usual effect is to create losses, and this is easily modelled by introducing a time delay between input and output that converts the linear BH characteristic into a hysteresis loop that is traversed CCW. A CCW loop represents a loss, and it is assumed that this loss must go as heat in the core. I can find no evidence of calorific measurements that verify this input loss is actually converted into heat. I can hear you challenging this saying where can the energy go except as radiation or heat? We know that the electron dipoles are very active, they precess at the Larmor rate, free electrons are whizzing about, orbital electrons are hopping into and out of their stationary orbits, there is a lot of activity going on. If we can somehow connect into that activity, is it not possible that we can both source and sink energy there. If the activity really is a connection to an active aether why can’t that supply or sink energy?
Within the core material magnetic wave propagation is very complex with electron dipoles obeying quantum rules involving their orbital or inherent spin, dipoles flipping, domain walls moving etc etc. Barkhausen jumps are a known effect; before the jump, as an externally applied field increases value the total field obeys dB/dH = μ
0, there is no relative permeability until a dipole flips, then there is the field jump to an increased value. What happens if the H field is pulsed yielding a dH over a time dt that takes B to the point of initiation of a Barkhausen jump, then the dH is suddenly reversed, do we get a jump in B while H returns to its original value? Of course in normal transformers these many jumps are not seen, the material behaves as though the accepted permeability rules apply dB/dH = μ
R μ
0. But within the material there could be small discrete volumes where B changes by μ
0dH in synch with H, then the jump by μ
Rμ
0dH occurs. Who knows what happens when there are H waves traveling both ways within the core influencing those small regions, what is the overall effect? Has this been studied? Shouldn’t we be studying these possibilities? If transmission line theory predicts an anomalous effect for a line with reactive impedance, and our only known line of this type is a transformer core operating in an unusual manner, and that core’s characteristics come from active elements within the core, isn’t there a possibility, however slight, that we could make it behave in an active manner. I certainly believe so.
Smudge
Edit, changed CW to CCW to correct an error brought about by a senior moment.
Author
Topic: A Paper on the Propagation of Magnetic Waves in Soft Iron (Read 6776 times)
