Ignoring cattq.

Oliver Heaviside, 1850-1925.

Oliver Heaviside’s last decade or two were preoccupied with battling with his cousin Miss Way, who lived downstairs. Earlier, for instance in 1900, we can see in the then current issue of Encyclopaedia Britannica that the question of whether an electron had mass was in doubt. Thus, we cannot blame Heaviside for not noticing the problem indicated in cattq. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm . However, persistence in not appreciating the message in cattq one hundred years later is inexcusable.

We now see that classical electromagnetism, when “explaining” how a battery lights a lamp, or how a computer signals down a USB cable telling a printer to print, crashes now that an electron has mass.







In 1897, the British physicist J. J. Thomson, with his colleagues John S. Townsend and H. A. Wilson, performed experiments indicating that cathode rays really were unique particles, rather than waves, atoms or molecules as was believed earlier.[5] Thomson made good estimates of both the charge e and the mass m, finding that cathode ray particles, which he called "corpuscles," had perhaps one thousandth of the mass of the least massive ion known: hydrogen.[5] He showed that their charge-to-mass ratio, e/m, was independent of cathode material. He further showed that the negatively charged particles produced by radioactive materials, by heated materials and by illuminated materials were universal.[5][34] The name electron was again proposed for these particles by the Irish physicist George Johnstone Stoney, and the name has since gained universal acceptance.



Although Thomson was able to measure the ratio of electric charge of mass (e/m) for an electron, he did not know how to determine either of these two quantities individually. That problem puzzled physicists for more than a decade. Finally, the riddle was solved by American physicist Robert Andrew Millikan (18681953) in a series of experiments conducted between 1907 and 1913. The accompanying figure outlines the main features of Millikan's famous oil drop experiment.


http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x391.htm  Lynch, sitting on my sofa, told me the discoverer of the electron [Thomson] had told him about his discovery! He explained that this was why he would be giving the keynote speech at the IEE centenary meeting. [He had invited me to the lecture and to the dinner which followed the lecture.] http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm

Ivor Catt 2.4.2019


Under Theory D, the energy current from battery to lamp is guided by “conductors”, which Heaviside called “obstructors”. They obstruct the inflow of energy in a way similar to the way the rails obstruct the entry of the train (wheels) into the guiding rails.

Copper being imperfect as a guide, some of the energy enters into it, and the mathematical manipulation of this energy leaking into the copper has been reified. Thus, “skin effect” energy has been reified as something other than ExH energy, and called “electricity”.

Mathematical manipulation of ExH energy is indifferent to whether the result is something else, electricity. If all the mathematics works out, this does not mean that the result of mathematically manipulating ExH energy is physically some other kind of entity, electricity, and not merely the result of mathematically manipulating ExH energy.

Professor Howie will be careful to not understand the argument presented here. There is a lot at stake. http://www.iop.org/about/awards/hon_fellowship/hon_fellows/page_66276.html




http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x256.pdf Josephson makes the extraordinary statement; “This is the problem if you work with simplified physics rather than follow the maths.”