The Crosstalk Photographs.


The Crosstalk Photographs.

Ivor Catt. 8 April 2010



About classical electrodynamics

The 109 Experiment


We need a thorough analysis of the work I did on crosstalk in the 1960s, the mathematics I developed to prove the limitation to two modes, and the photographs showing a third, illegal mode.


In my paper "Crosstalk (Noise) in Digital Systems" I wrote on page 761 , Appendix I;

“Assume that a current voltage step i, v, is travelling down the [pair of] parallel lines from left to right .... ” . Note that I did not say “Assume a single current voltage step .... ” [Note 1]. I was trapped in the reigning framework, deriving from Faraday’s Law, which I proceeded to base the argument and the mathematics on. I concluded that only one wave-front pattern could travel in such a way at only one velocity. Then on page 762 I used similar arguments giving “Proof that only two types of wave-front pattern can be propagated down a system of two wires and a ground plane [i.e. a symmetrical four wire system].” I (wrongly) began; “Now assume that a [single] wave front involving current steps ia and ip is travelling down the lines with a velocity c.” Note the missing, but implied, word “single”. Here is the fatal flaw in the whole discussion (leading to the fatal flaw in Faraday’s Law, which assumes a single field at one point), leading to the “proof” by the pictures . However, close inspection of  the pictures shows us that although traces 2 and 1 appear to confirm the calculations, and thus Faraday’s Law, traces 3 disprove it by showing a third (asymmetric) mode, which is not permitted under "Theory N" , but acceptable under "Theory C" .


Of course, an apologist for Establishment Electromagnetic Theory may want to argue that the small spike in the bottom trace of Figure 9.3 is not the combination of two spikes which separate out later in traces 2 and 1. But only a “scientist” deeply committed to defending theory a century old would do so. That means, of course, virtually every one of today’s scientists. However, it is likely that, rather than defending archaic theory, they will merely ignore the whole of this matter – both the mathematics and the pictures.


The inadequacy of mathematics as a language, and the too great faith in it by myself as well as others, for instance in my 1967 paper , is discussed by me in my book at 1 and 2 . Elsewhere I illustrate the multifarious problems by taking x, squaring it, finding the square root and deducing that the value is now x or –x. Even within mathematics there are obscurities, even when mathematics is divorced from physical reality. It is not surprising that I fell into a trap in 1964 when they were combined.


Note 1. I did not have to say “Assume that a single current voltage step i, v, is travelling down the [pair of] parallel lines” because under Faraday’s Law two steps in the same place at the same time would be illegal. I was then and for decades later a conscientious follower of Faraday. Now the truth is that if two pulses travelling in opposite directions down a coaxial cable pass through each other, there are then two current voltage pulses at the same point for a time, admittedly not both travelling “from left to right”. Thus, such a situation already defies Faraday’s Law, and nobody has ever noticed. (Elsewhere I assert that no professor or text book writer has ever considered {and never mentioned} two pulses travelling through each other, of course, so they could not confront this defiance of Faraday’s Law. One can only think about what one thinks about.)