# Re: SEB Model

```Original poster: "Paul Nicholson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <paul-at-abelian.demon.co.uk>

Richard Wayne Wall wrote:
> In reference to my SEB model, Paul makes confused comments.
> They are in reference to my assertion S = E x B.

> Not any H's around.  Lot's of B's though

The more advanced books on physics tend to adopt a system of units
in which the velocity of light is unity.  By doing so, most of
the c, mu, and epsilons vanish from the equations, thus making the
underlying physics clearer to see.  In this case you will see E and
B being used, rather than E and H, and the equations are altogether
less 'noisy'.

Rest assured that any formulas that I post to the list will be in
'engineering' units rather than the theoretical physicists 'natural'
units.

> I stand by my original statement that S = E x B.  This is not
> an original of mine.

In natural units, S = E x B is fine.  However RWW is trying
to suggest that S offers a 3rd degree of freedom to the field, ie
an extra polarisation.

> It's very easy reading and has great diagrams regarding the
> Poynting Vector.

So we have an admission that the Poynting vector is an established
part of EM theory, contrary to an earlier statement.  'SEB theory' is
meaningless nonsense - is this a list for discussing and refuting crank
physics, or is this a Tesla coiling list?

Dave Thomson wrote:
> Poynting Vector: S = 1/permeability(E*B)
> Is this equation correct?

Yes, because B = permeability * H.

The permeability, symbol mu (u), has the value in engineering
units of 4*pi*10^-7 Henries/metre.  This value arises as a
consequence of the historical definition of the Amp as the unit of
current, and does not say anything about nature. With a more
natural definition of units, this noisy constant goes away.
--
Paul Nicholson
--

```