Harold kept visiting me when I was dying.

Howie digs down

Howie gets his em from Jackson, a buddy at Trinity!  Classical Electrodynamics is a textbook about that subject written by theoretical particle and nuclear physicist John David Jackson.

Nobellist to approvingly says;

at 27 or 29 minutes; “Once it enters the high school text books, it’s there to stay.”

The link between Howie and Jackson Go to 9 minutes

1983 letter

“I cannot see the point in inducing prominent

 people in the field to take part in this.” - Howie, 1983

The Conquest of Thought

Conflation  Go to 23 minutes. “…. The more education you have, the more brainwashed you are.”


I quote from M Polanyi, “Personal Knowledge”, pub. RKP 1958/62, p151;

 The two conflicting systems of thought are separated by a logical gap .... Formal operations relying on one framework cannot demonstrate a proposition to persons who rely on another framework. .... Proponents of a new system [are] excluded for the time being .... from the community of science. .... The refusal to enter on the opponent’s way of arguing must be justified by making it appear altogether unreasonable. Such comprehensive rejection cannot fail to discredit the opponent. He will be made to appear as thoroughly deluded, which in the heat of the battle will easily come to imply that he was a fool, a crank or a fraud.


Description: Description: In new window

Re: Misrepresentation?


4.  It was foolish of me to introduce the photon concept which I thought might help to answer the question about how the EM step could accelerate immediately to the velocity of light.” – A Howie 19sep2020



Prof. A Howie

Sat, 19 Sep 2020, 18:21 (1 day ago)

to me, Brian, Alex, Malcolm, Anthony, Steve, michael.pepper

Dear Ivor,

In a possibly fruitless effort to remove all doubt let me summarise my

1. I agree that your picture of EM steps travelling to and fro at the
velocity of light gives an interesting picture of both the charging up
of a capacitor and of the discharging of a charged capacitor when it is
shorted by a resistor.

2. This picture seems pretty straightforward for a coaxial cable.
However, as I described before, it is not quite so simple for a parallel
plate capacitor particularly one with circular plates. Here the
cylindrical EM waves have a problem getting to the centre and some
additional contribution from simple charge flow is needed.

3. For several reasons, this travelling step picture is completely
incapable in my view of describing the static state of a charged
capacitor when it is sitting completely disconnected.

  (a) Without a constant energy input, the moving EM steps will be killed
by ohmic attenuation.  One of your recent messages seems to indicate
that you accept that ohmic dissipation does exist.  However it acts to
reduce the amplitude of the steps not to slow them down as you seem to
suppose it might.  Cancellation between the current flow associated with
oppositely propagating steps is only partial.

   (b) In most cases there will be some radiation and consequent loss of
energy from from the ends of the capacitor when an EM step reflects
there leading to a reflection coefficient less than one.  The coaxial
cable with its central electrode is an exception to this.

   (c) The idea that the moving steps which were involved in the charging
process just able to continue when the capacitor is disconnected runs
into difficulties because in the final stages of charging their
amplitude has reduced to extremely (even infinitesimally) small values.

4.  It was foolish of me to introduce the photon concept which I thought
might help to answer the question about how the EM step could accelerate
immediately to the velocity of light.  I should have just left this as a
consequence that this is the only velocity at which such EM waves or
steps can travel.  The photon (which is just the particle manifestation
of an EM wave) consequently has zero rest mass. 
Instead of helping the
discussion this unfortunately provided another diversionary opportunity
for you to parade your disbelief in wave particle duality.

Wakefield has nothing to do with the subject of wave particle duality. Either the energy in a charged capacitor is stationary, or it is not.

For Palmer, they are merely two “descriptions” of a charged capacitor.

We could “describe” a log of wood as having phlogiston (or caloric), or as not having phlogiston (or caloric). – Ivor Catt

As stated above I do not believe in the travelling step picture for the
statically charged capacitor and therefore I have never thought that
photons could play any role in maintaining the static charge.  I am not
so concerned about having such a crazy view erroneously attributed to me
however.  When repeated it will convey immediately to anyone who
understands the physics of what is going on that either I or more likely
the person who repeats the statement has a very imperfect grasp of the


On 2020-09-19 16:46, Ivor Catt wrote:
> Dear Brian,
> Is Archie correct when  he says you saw no heresy in ? e.g. "that there is no such a
> thing as a static electric field in a capacitor.
> "
> Are DHJ united?
>             Davies, Howie, Josephson.
> Ivor  Ship  Howie cattq The Instrumentalist universities are today doing more harm than good. Peterson, Sowell. eggs to Oxford lost 40 years "This longitudinal field
firstly supplies the driving force necessary if current is to flow in a
non-perfect conductor” – Howie. photons analysis of his equations was not allowed ("outrageous" according to Howie) Frightening  the way that the energy stored in a
charged capacitor is actually conveyed across the plates that to be strictly correct, - Jo on Howie Being there photons

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

 The IoP editor refused to publish my riposte.

Transmission electron microscopy and HIV




1 of 16

Description: Description:

Description: Description:

Description: Description: Print all

Description: Description: In new window

Re: Ongoing challenges

Description: Description:

Prof. A Howie <>

28 Apr 2021, 09:39

Description: Description:

Description: Description:

to me

Description: Description:

Dear Ivor,

Wrong yet again!  The point you are making here about the H field
generated by the displacement current was already rebutted by me when I
pointed out (on 21 April) that the displacement current flowing in the x
direction in the TEM wave you describes is not configured in a wire-ike
geometry but in a SHEET extending in the x-y plane.  If you think of
such  sheet as a very closely spaced array of parallel wires running in
the x direction it is easy to see that the contributions each makes to a
field H in the z direction is cancelled by the other wires.

We might be getting somewhere in these interminable discussions if you
read the message properly and either admitted that this SHEET picture is
indeed correct or else produced a much more detailed argument to refute


On 2021-04-21 19:44, Ivor Catt wrote:
> An electric current in the x direction causes circular magnetic field
> in the yz plane, that is, in the y and z
> directions
> When we have an ExH TEM wave, E and H are in the x and y direction (in
> the xy plane). The ExH travels in the z direction at the speed of
> light c. The displacement current is in the x direction, and causes
> magnetic field in the y and z direction (in the yz plane). What is
> unacceptable is the part of the magnetic field in the forward, z
> direction. This is because the TEM wave is a Transverse
> Electromagnetic Wave. By definition, its electric and magnetic fields
> are in the xy plane, and the TEM Wave by definition does not have
> magnetic field in the forward, z direction.
> Palmer, Howie, Josephson, Davies must undertake to never use the
> phrase "TEM Wave" - Transverse Electromagnetic Wave" in future -
> because they say it cannot exist. For them, some of the magnetic field
> is not transverse, that part caused by the displacement current.
> Ivor Catt
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 at 18:50, Ivor Catt <> wrote:
>> Harry Ricker to Howie;
>> “Regarding your answer to the question about what flows across the
>> step boundary, Ivor has already addressed that as a different Catt
>> question. Perhaps you are unaware of this question that Ivor
>> formulated. The difficulty is that if a displacement current flows
>> as you suggested in your comment, the magnetic field is created in
>> the wrong direction. It would be perpendicular to the magnetic field
>> that is actually observed, and so this idea is contrary to the facts
>> as we know them. I think Ivor can supply as more complete version of
>> his question than I outline here.”
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 at 18:26, HARRY RICKER <> wrote:
>>> Archie,
>>> I am still puzzled by your remarks. Ivor's Theory D takes into
>>> account the small Ohmic loss in the conductors. You seem to be
>>> saying that the Ohmic loss is responsible for driving the
>>> electricity around the circuit. I don't see how that works. The
>>> Ohmic losses are a small part of the total power flow, so what is
>>> driving the main part of the power flow, and where is the electric
>>> field that delivers this power located?
>>> You said this: "This would seem to relate to the old N-W, S-E
>>> response to one of Ivor's early questions - a division of opinion
>>> among the "experts" over which he made a lot of hay." Frankly, I
>>> don't understand your reasoning  and how you arrived at the idea
>>> that your diagram 8.2 from Jackson answers the Catt question. It
>>> seems to me that they are completely unrelated and have nothing in
>>> common with each other. Hence I am puzzled as to why you mention
>>> this.
>>> Regarding your answer to the question about what flows across the
>>> step boundary, Ivor has already addressed that as a different Catt
>>> question. Perhaps you are unaware of this question that Ivor
>>> formulated. The difficulty is that if a displacement current flows
>>> as you suggested in your comment, the magnetic field is created in
>>> the wrong direction. It would be perpendicular to the magnetic
>>> field that is actually observed, and so this idea is contrary to
>>> the facts as we know them. I think Ivor can supply as more
>>> complete version of his question than I outline here.
>>> Regarding Ivor's sunlight issue he is simply saying that
>>> electricity is EM wave energy just as the energy from the sun is
>>> EM wave energy. The purpose of the analogy is to show that no
>>> current of electrons is involved in propagation of energy from the
>>> sun just as there is no need for a current of electrons to explain
>>> the EM wave energy on a transmission line or electric circuit.
>>> Ivor says that in electric circuits the energy is in the form of
>>> EM waves just as in waveguides. So an electric circuit is a kind
>>> of waveguide. He is asking if you agree with that and if not why?
>>> Regarding the issue of capacitance. I was puzzled by what you
>>> said. Is a capacitor merely a transmission line with  open
>>> circuits so that there is a high impedance that produces a static
>>> electric field? In my opinion there is no such thing as
>>> capacitance per see that is a quality that obtains when we have a
>>> voltage across a circuit that is broken or incomplete. Is that in
>>> agreement with what you are saying?
>>> Harry
>>> On Wednesday, April 21, 2021, 10:01:09 AM EDT, Prof. A Howie
>>> <> wrote:
>>> Dear Harry,
>>> I doubt very much whether I can answer your questions to the
>>> satisfaction of many of the people involved in these discussions
>>> but
>>> here goes.
>>> Chapter 8 and particularly fig 8.2 of Jackson seemed relevant to
>>> me in
>>> at least two ways:-
>>> Firstly it gives an answer to Malcolm's frequently repeated
>>> question
>>> about what drives any current that is flowing in the conductors of
>>> a
>>> transmission line.  For a practical line with good but not perfect
>>> conductors fig. 8.2 shows that the E field is not entirely normal
>>> to the
>>> conductor but has a small component along each conductor that
>>> drives the
>>> current one way on one of them and backwards on the other.
>>> Secondly it shows that the normal component of the E field and the
>>> small
>>> longitudinal component both penetrate to the skin depth into the
>>> conductor so that there will actually be current flow in this
>>> region
>>> both parallel and normal to the surface but notice that it changes
>>> sign
>>> and dies away with increasing depth. This would seem to relate to
>>> the
>>> old N-W, S-E response to one of Ivor's early questions - a
>>> division of
>>> opinion among the "experts" over which he made a lot of hay.
>>> The only point, other than a joke, in sending this diagram to Ivor
>>> as a
>>> Christmas card might be that it sat on his mantelpiece long enough
>>> for
>>> him to take more than a flying glance at it.
>>> My answer to Malcolm's first question about what if anything was
>>> flowing
>>> across the front of the EM step was simply to repeat the standard
>>> textbook justification for displacement current which not too
>>> surprisingly got nowhere. Although there is no flow of charge in
>>> this
>>> region, the crucial point is that displacement current can like
>>> normal
>>> charge flowing current generate a magnetic field.  This then
>>> allows the
>>> familiar transverse EM waves to propagate in free space.
>>> Reverting to an earlier recent discussion, Josephson in the
>>> sunlight is
>>> not receiving guided EM waves but just his small share from what
>>> the sun
>>> is emitting over the full 4pi solid angle.  If however we want to
>>> guide
>>> the radiation we need to confine it between suitable conductors as
>>> in a
>>> coaxial cable or wave guide or in a dielectric like a silicon or
>>> glass
>>> fibre,  We then have to deal with the sometimes complicated
>>> boundary
>>> conditions at the interface with these conducting or dielectric
>>> media.
>>> Here the relevant metal or dielectric properties such as
>>> conductivity or
>>> refractive index depend on frequency - another stumbling block for
>>> Ivor
>>> and others. For the coaxial cable or transmission line, the upshot
>>> is
>>> that although the EM field carries all or nearly all of the power
>>> in the
>>> cable the currents in the conductors are an essential feature of
>>> the
>>> process and in the case of good but not perfect conductors give
>>> rise to
>>> ohmic losses and consequent signal attenuation.
>>> On capacitance, my view is that a transmission line is indeed a
>>> capacitance though of a rather extreme kind which nevertheless
>>> provides
>>> an interesting illustration of the charging and discharging
>>> process when
>>> the time for wave propagation over the whole capacitor is
>>> significant.
>>> If however you take the view that any place where two conductors
>>> (or
>>> dielectrics) come close to one another without touching is a
>>> capacitor
>>> (which would include your stray capacitance) this configuration
>>> would
>>> not necessarily be a transmission line.  It could for insyance
>>> just be a
>>> pair of non-touching small spheres.
>>> Archie.
>>> On 2021-04-20 15:04, HARRY RICKER wrote:
>>>> Archie,
>>>> Thanks for taking the time to reply. Unfortunately I don't
>>> understand
>>>> your reply and what your point was in your reply to Malcolm.  I
>>> don't
>>>> get what point is being made in Figure 8.2 that is relevant to
>>> the
>>>> discussion or why sending this to Ivor as a Christmas card is
>>> making a
>>>> point of importance. Can you elaborate?
>>>> The issue that Malcolm was addressing was: What is the physical
>>>> explanation for how electricity moves or is conducted by
>>> transmission
>>>> lines? I think Bogatin was saying the mechanism is EM wave
>>>> propagation, since he refers to displacement current which is
>>> the
>>>> theoretical concept needed to produce EM waves according to the
>>>> Maxwell EM theory.
>>>> Although Ivor seems to be of the opinion that your emails are
>>> merely
>>>> obstructive, I simply would like to understand what your opinion
>>> is of
>>>> how electricity is transmitted or propagated or conducted by
>>> wires
>>>> that constitute a transmission line, and whether or not you
>>> agree that
>>>> the process involves EM waves or a flow of electrons without EM
>>> waves
>>>> being involved. So I anticipate your clarifications.
>>>> Harry
>>>> On Monday, April 19, 2021, 09:05:37 AM EDT, Prof. A Howie
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>> Dear Harry,
>>>> Chapter 8 of Jackson's book deals with waveguides and resonant
>>>> cavities.
>>>> In particular fig 8.2 shows the bevaviour of the main TEM field
>>>> components Eperpendicular and Hparallel with the small
>>> components
>>>> Eparallel (which will in fact be in the direction of wave
>>> propagation)
>>>> and Hperpendiculsar in the vicinity of a planar interface with a
>>>> conducting metal.
>>>> If you bear in mind that the current flow at any point within
>>> the
>>>> metal
>>>> is governed by the electric field there, you will see that the
>>> current
>>>> flow is confined to the skin depth and is quite complicated with
>>> flow
>>>> both normal and parallel to the surface - shades of the old E-W
>>> N-S
>>>> business!
>>>> I thought at one point to send this diagram as a Christmas card
>>> to
>>>> Ivor.
>>>> It does however depend on frequency since for example the skin
>>> depth
>>>> is
>>>> frequency dependent.
>>>> You can short-circuit some of these complications of the real
>>>> engineering world situation which EM theory addresses by
>>> following
>>>> Ivor
>>>> and restricting attention to superconductors.  As I remarked
>>> before
>>>> however, the answer to Malcolm's question about where the
>>> driving
>>>> field
>>>> for current flow in the conductors is coming from is I believe
>>> the
>>>> Meissner effect which repels the magnetic field from a
>>> superconductor
>>>> with an opposite field generated by current flow.  BDJ is better
>>>> qualified than I am to describe superconductors.
>>>> Archie Howie.
>>>> On 2021-04-19 13:26, HARRY RICKER wrote:
>>>>> Archie,
>>>>> You said this:  As I explained before you will find that this
>>> is
>>>>> analysed in Jackson's book and no doubt elsewhere.
>>>>> OK please tell us where by page number. Cite some references. I
>>>> think
>>>>> Malcolm cited the only reference, and he claims the analysis
>>> there
>>>> is
>>>>> false. So we need other references.
>>>>> Harry
>>>>> On Monday, April 19, 2021, 05:54:48 AM EDT, Prof. A Howie
>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>> Dear Malcolm,
>>>>> It may be useful to separate your question into two parts.
>>>>> (a) Do we have a current loop? If we think of a conventional
>>> current
>>>>> loop i.e. charge flowing round a circuit we could break the
>>>> conducting
>>>>> circuit at some point.  Current could continue to flow in the
>>>>> conducting
>>>>> parts of the circuit but charge would build up plus and minus
>>> on
>>>>> either
>>>>> side of the break giving rise to an increasing voltage across
>>> the
>>>>> break
>>>>> i.e, the dE/dt term called displacement current.  Although no
>>> charge
>>>>> or
>>>>> anything else is flowing across the gap the dE/dt term is
>>> referred
>>>> to
>>>>> as
>>>>> displacement current since it preserves the idea of a current
>>> loop.
>>>>> Much more important than that of course was that when this
>>> extra
>>>> term
>>>>> was inserted by Maxwell into Ampere's law the possibility of EM
>>>> waves
>>>>> propagating at the velocity of light emerged.
>>>>> (b) What is driving the current?  In the unbroken parts of the
>>>> circuit
>>>>> are actually good conducting (but not perfect i.e, not
>>>>> superconducting)
>>>>> metals we need an electric field component to drive the
>>> current. You
>>>>> should note that this field component is needed in BOTH the
>>> upper
>>>> and
>>>>> lower conductor.  As I explained before you will find that this
>>> is
>>>>> analysed in Jackson's book and no doubt elsewhere.  For good
>>> but not
>>>>> perfect conductors the electric field is now no longer purely
>>>>> transverse
>>>>> but has a small longitudinal component which has opposite sign
>>> at
>>>> the
>>>>> two conductors.  I also mentioned that this extra small
>>> longitudinal
>>>> E
>>>>> field component gives rise via Poynting's vector to an energy
>>> flow
>>>>> into
>>>>> each of the conductors compensating for the Joule losses that
>>> are
>>>>> going
>>>>> on there because of the current flow.  The EM field strength in
>>> the
>>>>> guide is then gradually depleted.
>>>>> I rather fear that repeating this to you is unlikely to have
>>> any
>>>>> effect
>>>>> so it has probably been a waste of my time.  Giving up on this
>>> task,
>>>>> which Ivor prefers to call "omerta" may more accurately be
>>> called
>>>>> "despair".  Nevertheless I live in hope!
>>>>> Archie Howie.
>>>>> On 2021-04-19 04:55, Malcolm Davidson wrote:
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>> it has been quite a while since I made comment to this email
>>>>> thread.
>>>>>> A few years ago I had a series of emails with Professor
>>> Bogatin
>>>> from
>>>>>> Colorado U. in Boulder Colorado USA. Here is a web address for
>>> one
>>>>> of
>>>>>> his books.
>>>>>> Here is a screen shot from one of the pages;
>>>>>> I repeat what I've stated many times. The above explanation
>>> is
>>>>> wrong,
>>>>>> it is physically impossible and yet this is what is taught in
>>>>>> Universities and Colleges all over the world. How can this be
>>>>>> acceptable to anyone who understands the basic primitives of
>>>>> physics.
>>>>>> The step as shown above is traveling at the speed of light for
>>> the
>>>>>> medium and, somehow, I have to believe that some entity moves
>>>> across
>>>>>> the front face of the edge!
>>>>>> I respectfully ask any and all of you to respond to the
>>> following
>>>>>> questions?
>>>>>> * Is there something flowing across the leading edge of
>>> the
>>>>> step as
>>>>>> it propagates along the transmission line?
>>>>>> * If so, explain how it manifests?
>>>>>> * If not, then within the canon of conventional wisdom if
>>>>> electric
>>>>>> current is the flow if electrons (albeit at a slow velocity)
>>> what
>>>> is
>>>>>> the force on the upper conductor propelling them back towards
>>> the
>>>>>> source?
>>>>>> * If not, this breaks the idea of a current loop? Explain?
>>>>>> thank you for your assistance.
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> Malcolm
>>>>>> -------------------------
>>>>>> From: Ivor Catt <>
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 5:56 PM
>>>>>> To: Archie Howie <>; Christopher Palmer
>>>>>> <>; Anthony Davies
>>>>>> <>; Brian Josephson <>
>>>>>> Cc: HARRY RICKER <>; Malcolm Davidson
>>>>>> <>; Steve Crothers
>>> <>;
>>>> Phil
>>>>>> Reed <>; Alex Yakovlev
>>>>>> <>; Forrest Bishop
>>>>>> <>; Anthony Wakefield
>>>>>> <>
>>>>>> Subject: parasites
>>>>>> Howie FRS digs in.
>>>>>> Dear Archie,
>>>>>> All you gotta be is Scottish, not Sottish. I do hope you
>>> start to
>>>>>> climb out.
>>>>>> Start by answering; "Should you lie to students in order to
>>> help a
>>>>>> wireman to wire up a house?", or comment on Wakefield 1, 2, 3,
>>> 4.
>>>>>> Presumably that is Wakefield's "absurd ego trip";
>>>>>> Prof. A Howie <>
>>>>>> Mon, 29 Jun 2020, 11:23
>>>>>> to me, Brian, Anthony, Malcolm, John, michael.pepper,
>>> Forrest,
>>>>>> massimiliano.pieraccini, Alex, Ed, Steve, Anthony, HARRY,
>>> Jack,
>>>>>> philip, mike, Phil, John, David, Alexander, Christopher, Mike,
>>>>> David,
>>>>>> Giuseppe, Raeto, Renata, Monika, Peter, Tony, ekkehard,
>>> Bernard
>>>>>> Dear Ivor,
>>>>>> I could not possibly improve on this most recent message of
>>> yours
>>>> as
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> illustration of the justice of my description "absurd ego
>>> trip" to
>>>>>> describe your activity!
>>>>>> On the one hand we have this absolutely outrageous fantasy
>>> about
>>>>>> Maxwell
>>>>>> and his bank followed immediately afterwards by the "no
>>> electric
>>>>>> current" claim simply repeated despite numerous arguments to
>>> the
>>>>>> contrary. I and others supplied detailed accounts e.g, for a
>>> coax
>>>>>> cable
>>>>>> that Maxwell's equations pride a solution where the energy is
>>>>> carried
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> the EM field between the conductors but is of necessity linked
>>> to
>>>> an
>>>>>> electric current within them.  On connection to a standard hot
>>>>>> filament
>>>>>> lamp it is this current that will light it.
>>>>>> Archie Howie.


Attachments area

Preview YouTube video Being There (1979) UK Theatrical Trailer.

Description: Description:

Description: Description:

Being There (1979) UK Theatrical Trailer.

Preview YouTube video Being There - Original Theatrical Trailer

Description: Description:

Description: Description:

Being There - Original Theatrical Trailer