June 10, 2020

This was definitely the initial issue
> in
>> my discussions with Ivor Catt when he kept lots arguments about
>> rolling
>> lines of eggs from London to Oxford.
>> This was before all the East-West, North-South arguments came up” =- A Howie




3 Conclusion Pieraccini and Selleri have not answered the Catt Question. On the one hand they treat current in the conducting wires as electron current but on the other hand they invoke the transverse electric field between the conducting wires to drive this electron current at the electron drift speed. Their analysis violates the classical electromagnetic theory they use in their attempt to prove that what they call “Catt’s Anomaly” is merely an “apparent paradox” [1]. The real paradox here is their claim that very slowly flowing electrons in the wires of a transmission line produce an electron current in those wires that travels at the speed of light, driven by an elecric field orthogonal to those wires. “If I have promised to deliver one dozen eggs to Oxford, one hour from now, Oxford being 100 miles away, there is no point in despatching ten dozen eggs in a vehicle which travels at only ten miles/h” [4]. Submitted on December 13, 2015 / Accepted on December 14, 2015




Re: can the the trance state account for protective stupidity?



Prof. A Howie

Sat, 18 Jul, 17:04 (16 hours ago)

to me, kc3mx, Forrest, Brian, Malcolm, Alex, Steve, Anthony, John, Jack

Dear Ivor,

The two most recent messages I have received from Forrest Bishop (that
master of invective) and Harry Ricker encapsulate why scarcely anything
has been achieved by these exchanges or is indeed likely to be achieved.
As I said thirty or more years ago after of my failed attempts to
correct the fallacy in your "rolling eggs to Oxford" picture of electric
it is just as hard, maybe even harder for you to abandon your
position on electrodynamics than it is for me to accept that there is
anything wrong with Maxwell's equations!  The possibility of being in a
trance state is there for anyone.

 From my point of view, deriving from my own long experience in electron
microscopy, the notions of electric charge and current carried by
electrons with definite charges are even more fundamental than Maxwell's
equations. I referred more than once to the immense body of scientific
experience manipulating and using beams of electron current but to my
knowledge never got a comment on this point.  I also pointed out that
the electron accelerating systems used in electron microscopy depend on
a highly stable electric field maintained between a highly charged
cathode - anode set up.  The idea that this highly stable, field (static
in time) can be generated by electromagnetic waves travelling to and fro
in the system is impossible.  Such an effect I argued would be
detectable and depleted in short time by ohmic losses in the electrodes
as well as by radiation leakage.  That's why I put forward the Leyden
jar experiment.

I would not badge myself as an expert on coaxial cables or transmission
lines but I think that I do have a reasonable grasp by now of current
theory of their operation. The generally used theory of the TEM mode in
a coaxial cable gets simplicity and practical utility by assuming that
the metal components are perfect conductors. The main practical
consequence that is lost here is attenuation of the signal which is
certainly a measurable effect with figures quoted by sellers of
different brands of coaxial cable.  These quoted figures also increase
like the square root of the frequency as would be expected. Fortunately
the attenuation in a system involving metals can also be calculated,
probably to a good approximation by using Ampere's theorem for deduce
the currents from the transverse fields given by the simple
approximation and then computing the ohmic losses per unit length of
cable (see the problem I referred to in chapter of Jackson).  In the
same chapter Jackson calculates an approximate correction to these
fields finding a small additional longitudinal electric field component
near wire and sheath with a sign reversal between these.  For those who
require it, there is thus a more visible driving force for the wire
current and the reverse current in th sheath.  It would certainly be
nice to have a more complete theory which would map out the Poynting
vector flow in the dielectric which (as Jackson's field corrections
indicate) would have a small component of energy flow into the wire and

There is obviously an incomplete connection between a fully rigorous
theory for coaxial cables and practical exploitation (where the simple
theory plus fudged attenuation is good enough).  It seems to me that
there may be quite a close parallel with the situation over house wiring
where, as you have pointed out, traditional current flow, ohm's law etc
can apparently be successfully used without reference or knowledge of
energy transport in a surrounding EM field.

I would agree that it would be interesting to explore in more detail the
role of EM fields in the charging or discharge of a capacitor through
coaxial cable. As indicated above however this needs a better coaxial
theory with proper coupling between fields and current in non-perfect
conductors.  It will not be possible to get consensus however when there
is continuing disagreement about the description of the state of charged
capacitor. As reported by Yakovlev, Wakefield's experiments made a good
step in addressing the charging problem. I have not followed details of
the history here but have a suspicion that his work might have received
a better reception had not been festooned with with so many claims about
basic failures in electrodynamic theory.

I may continue trying to attack the challenge of improving current
coaxial cable theory and will report any eventual success.  In the
meantime however I will cease my engagement in these vigorous but
unproductive email exchanges.

Archie Howie.

  On 2020-07-18 06:29, Forrest Bishop wrote:
> We've seen multiple examples of the absolute lack of cogitation from
> Dore, Josephson, Howie, Davies, and so many more- as if these were
> record/playback  units produced in the same factory. None of them have
> provided any sort of rational response to, e.g.,
>       * The Catt Question
>       * The Forbidden Equation
>       * Ohmic losses on bi-directional transmission lines
>       * And several other related topics

 [ http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Hawking-Catt.html ]
> All have elected instead to defame, deflect, distort, distract, and so
> on. None have shown the slightest degree of doubt about the received
> and preached theories of physics.
> Orwell and many others have noticed and commented on this kind of
> behavior, calling it crimestop, protective stupidity, academic omerta,
> etc. Now, while there is some degree of criminality involved, perhaps
> this isn't a sufficient explanation. Consider the possibility that
> these men actually BELIEVE in Maxwell's Equations, Einstein, and the
> rest. By BELIEVE I mean in the most primitive sense, where all of
> external reality is subsumed and subordinate to the pre-constructed,
> internal cognitive model of the world, with no further input or change
> possible. Absolute, impenetrable solipsism.
> In other words, _the death of the mind_.
> There is a different explanation for this phenomenon, which comes from
> the study and application of individual and mass mind control technic,
> which we see playing out in the streets today.
> To be continued...
> Forrest
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ivor Catt
>> Sent: Jul 17, 2020 1:42 PM
>> To: Brian Josephson
>> Cc: "Prof. A Howie" , Malcolm Davidson , Alex Yakovlev , Steve
>> Crothers , Anthony Davies , Forrest Bishop , John Raymond Dore ,
>> Jack Dinsdale
>> Subject: Re:
>> Brian, Howie;
>> Comment please
>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j73.pdf
>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j184.pdf Howie merely said;
>> "Outrageous." Not very scientific. Nothing from Brian.
>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j190.pdf
>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j197.pdf
>> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x31n.pdf
>> [1]
>> Virus-free. www.avast.com [1]
>> On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 20:52, Brian Josephson <bdj10@icloud.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 17 Jul 2020, at 20:42, Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I note that you, Brian, (and Howie) refuse to comment on my
>>> later articles on Maxwell's Equations.
>>> Howie said it all: 'Nevertheless there comes a later point if you
>>> are trying to
>>> overthrow or even just tidy up the existing theory when you need
>>> to
>>> understand it well enough to attack it in the right places!’
>>> B.
>>> -------
>>> Brian D. Josephson
>>> Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
>>> Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
>>> Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
>>> WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
>>> Tel. +44(0)1223 337260
> Links:
> ------
> [1]


ReplyReply to allForward