13 Jun 2020, 21:08
Dear Ivor (et al):
I have not the time or inclination to go through or try to understand all the various long and short answers to your question about a battery connected by wires to a lamp. There is simply too much of it.
I have written out some 'answers' to the question and to the various remarks made by others about it.
My answers are very lengthy and therefore I expect that few people will have the time or inclination to read what I have written. However, being confined to my house and garden and spending much time doing apparently useful things like gardening and avoiding watching TV, I wrote all this for variety and as a contrasting form of relaxation, and therefore inflict it on you.
2020 June 13th
Prof Anthony C Davies
Emeritus Professor, King's College London
IEEE R8 History Activities coordination
IEEE Industry Applications Society Distinguished Lecturer 2017-2018
On Monday, 8 June 2020, 13:26:44 BST, Ivor Catt <email@example.com> wrote:
Dear Professor Archie Howie,
I ask you a simple question in the interest of science.
When a battery is connected to a lamp and the lamp lights, perhaps two things travel from battery to lamp;
1 Electric current down the wires, delivering the power to light the lamp.
2 Electromagnetic energy ExH guided by the wires, travelling between the wires, delivering the power. This is the same as the energy with which the sunlight warms you.
Which of these, ! or 2 or both, deliver power to the lamp?
In 1892 Heaviside said that all the energy lighting the lamp travelled in the space between the wires.
"Return to our wire from London to Edinburgh with a steady current from the battery in London The energy is poured out of the battery sideways into the dielectric at a steady rate ... Most of the energy is transmitted parallel to the wire nearly ... But some of the outer tubes go out into space to an immense distance ... If there is an instrument in the circuit at Edinburgh, it is worked by energy that has travelled wholly through the dielectric, then finding its way into the instrument, ... where it enters ... and is there dissipated ...
Refusal to clarify this point by people like you has silenced the next advance, made in 1976, towards Theory D. We have lost 44 years.
Your silence, when you were approached 40 years ago with cattq, needs to end. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
You are wrong to pretend that cattq was a disagreement between you and me. It was a disagreement between you and Pepper, who worked for you, which you refused to resolve. He is on this circulation. He wrote rubbish on cattq. Brian Josephsopn told me Pepper had changed his mind, but for 30 years Pepper has used the fifth amendment, totally silent. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x67d.htm
Your oafish behavior, together with your manifest ignorance on the topic of basic electricity (which you appear to be proud of), indicates that you, Mr. Howie, are not fit for purpose.
You will have to
issue a retraction (multiple counts), step down and renounce your titles, and
repair your ill-gotten gains. Repent.
History will not be kind to you, Mr. Howie.
Forrest Bishop, A Colleague Of Ivor Catt