The new
railway theory
|
Whereas my policy
generally is never to remove a web page, this page may be removed or
modified. Ivor Catt 13may02
Ivor, Firstly, I want to say
that I have been greatly enriched by your input and thankyou for taking the
time to even answer my emails at all. I consider that you are an
expert in your field. As a "newcomer",
I acknowledge that Theory C is a great discovery, even if most of the
"Scientific Establishment" doesn't. Secondly, this is not a
"Dead end" as you put it - for me, its only the beginning. You have
made the statement that: "None of the recipients of his email (except Malcolm and
Nigel) will understand his (correct) exposition as to what happens when
one closes the single switch, as he does below. It is important for those new
on the scene to not demand exposition on complex cases, or they will merely
get replies which they do not understand, an example being Mike's, below.
Such replies will involve experts like Mike in a lot of futile work. To test
this, let us see if any other recipient is willing to assert that he
understands Mike's exposition, below. I would guess that it involved Mike in
two or three hours of work, to no purpose." I can't say that I have
perfect understanding, but I feel Mike's answer (which I doubt would
have taken 3 hrs, but if it has - thanks for the time!) has given me
more light than just keeping everything to "simple straight forward
cases - such as, "Perfectly designed Transmission Lines"", so
can I say this with the utmost clarity, that Mike's work is NOT futile -
his one answer to ONE of my questions, has given me more insight and
understanding, it was DEFINITELY NOT to no purpose. The cases which you have
considered "complex", to me are not complex when explained in terms
of Theory N. "Situations which are straighforward in classical
electroagnetic theory can be complex under Theory C. Ivor
4may02" As you have said, the
complexity is introduced by employing pure Wave Theory to solve the problem,
rather than the problem itself. I have repeatedly said that each case I have
presented, has been more or less straight forward to explain from
conventional Theory, but as you made it clear - it doesn't make the Theory
necessarily correct. As I have said - I
want to know the truth, I have been in the "Dark Ages" for
years and its only now that I'm coming into the light. Sticking to the KISS
principle in any case has never helped me, just getting information
"Downloaded into my brain" as facts, never helped either - I have
to be able to ask questions and go at least a little deeper than the surface
to get some understanding, even If I end up in a "Dog's Breakfast",
at least its a starting point. I feel its counter
productive to "throw tantrums" as some (or one) do (does), or worst
still, to insult your expert group. But, to some degree, I
also think its counter productive to not venture into a little more depth as
Mike has done in relation to some basic geometries - it has only served to
enlighten my eyes. As for the rest of
your email, I detect an air of resignation, that after 35 yrs of
suppression - Truth or Knowledge will Freeze or more correctly,
disintegrate. Personally, I'd like to be
a little more positive. I have been in an
interesting discussion recently, with an "Alternate Physicist". He has been meeting others
who are looking for answers. He believes that we are on the verge of an
explosion of Truth, which will ultimately bring about a revolution in
technology world wide. He has heard of you, Ivor
and there are others I know of - don't give up, you’re not the only one -
there are others, maybe more than you realise - your not alone. Regards, Peter ----- Original Message -----
To: Peter Partridge ; mikegi Cc: bernard@cb500.fsnet.co.uk
; michael@drpelling.fsnet.co.uk ; energy
; nigelbryancook@hotmail.com ; c.h.thompson@pgen.net
; energy
; malcolm_davidson@sonymusic.com Sent:
Saturday, 11 May 2002 8:03 pm Subject: Dead end > Catt uses uniform transmission
lines in his examples because they eliminate > Having said all this, there is
some validity to your two monorails idea. For Note that I usually insert two switches in the two lines, so as to
avoid the complexity introduced by closing only one switch, as Mike does
below. None of the recipients of his email (except Malcolm and
Nigel) will understand his (correct) exposition as to what happens when
one closes the single switch, as he does below. It is important for those new
on the scene to not demand exposition on complex cases, or they will merely
get replies which they do not understand, an example being Mike's, below.
Such replies will involve experts like Mike in a lot of futile work. To test
this, let us see if any other recipient is willing to assert that he
understands Mike's exposition, below. I would guess that it involved Mike in
two or three hours of work, to no purpose. That leads me to the next point. The comprehensive theory and
experience outlined in my writings and those of my close colleagues result
from decades of highly salaried work around the world using the most
expensive, best equipment. All of this work has been suppressed for 35
years. Newcomers keep thinking that they are approaching a minor theoretical
advance made by one or two men as a result of less than a year's research.
They are unable to comprehend the enormity of suppressing major work by a
far-flung group of leading experts, the suppression lasting nearly half
a century. [This work builds on that of Heaviside, 1900, who was also
comprehensively suppressed. He was unreferenced in every book on
electromagnetism (except one) for 50
years.] That is, they cannot cope with the fact, that the twentieth
century was an anti-scientific century, and scientific advance was ruthlessly
suppressed. (Like Lavoisier's oxidation,) Theory C is one of the greatest
scientific advances of all time. It did not come easily. Walton, Davidson and
Catt contributed to its discovery, which was made in 1976. This material cannot be mastered in less than two years of work. When
such as Pelling realise that they have bitten off more than they can chew in
a few hours, they throw a tantrum, insult my expert group, or otherwise
create a fog (in the case of Pelling, a fog of bad language) within which
they can retire. Rae West covered his tracks by saying that none of
my expert group would clearly outline our theory. (Actually, our
material is much more than a single theory. It is all of the practical and
theoretical knowledge gained by all the best experts in the field of
digital electronics, over a period of 30 years. For instance, our
assertion that a capacitor has no self-resonant frequency can be separated
from all our other work. Search for "Self resonant frequency" on
Google.) Pelling etc. have no other option but to cover their retreat.
There is nothing at the end of this rainbow. It is very likely that all the
theory and experience under discussion here will disappear from the record.
Society can get along nicely if it freezes its understanding of
electromagnetism at the state of general knowledge of the subject in around
1970. [However, it is not possible to freeze knowledge. If this is
attempted, the knowledge tends to disintegrate. Search for "TEM
Wave" on Google.] This is what it has done. Even my major 1967
IEEE paper is unknown within the profession.
Ivor Catt. 11may02. -----
Original Message ----- From:
"mikegi" <mikegi@prestige.net> To:
"Peter Partridge" <pjp@caboolture.hotkey.net.au>; "Ivor Catt" <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk> Cc: <malcolm_davidson@sonymusic.com>; <energy_synctek@gmx.net>; <c.h.thompson@pgen.net>; <nigelbryancook@hotmail.com>; <energy@synctek.com.au> Sent:
Saturday, May 11, 2002 6:26 AM Subject:
Re: Lets move on! > In your first scenario below, what happens when you switch on
the battery?
|
|
|
|
|
