Why does the expert not understand?

I am just back from abroad, and briefly inspected the email below. Further analysis will, I think, gives us a lot of insight into the stranglehold of a paradigm. A useful insight into understanding the stranglehold is the Orwell quote at the top of my article .

It took me decades to see the other fatal flaws in classical theory, which now, at last, appears to be thoroughly worm-eaten. It is a good thing I concentrated on The Catt Question for thirty years. However, we have to ask why only thirty years later I finally fixed on other flaws, for instance the displacement current at the front edge of a TEM step guided by two conductors. The Second Question . Looking back, I find it hidden in my writing of a decade or two ago. The Question is, whether the dD/dt displacement current at the front face of the step causes magnetic field? When recently I asked this of Nobel Prizewinner Brian Josephson, he told me to “inspect the mathematics”, which I think echoes the email dialogue below.

Obviously, today, having seen the fatal flaw demonstrated by The Catt Question , we should have expected to find other very obvious fatal flaws, like the Second Question . All such flaws need to be assembled, and an analysis made of how people, as described by Orwell, will persistently fail to see the obvious. Obviously, one of the defensive tricks is to allege that somehow the mathematics can maintain the structure when common sense tells us that it is fatally flawed. However, that is only one of the defence mechanisms employed to defend a ruling paradigm. There are more, and they need to be enumerated and analysed carefully. I now think that the “electricity” paradigm is inviolate, and will survive for a century more. Note that I published an article doubting this paradigm a third of a century ago. "Death of Electric Current" . These reforms in science are very, very slow. Also, I myself am very slow to see the next advance in theory, which in hindsight seems obvious. My slowness tends to explain the inability of professors and text book writers to see the obvious.

I need to update this website with analysis of the email exchange below.

Ivor Catt 20 March 2012.

Later;

It is extraordinary that I gained so much insight by reading some of the massive email exchange now at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x23k.htm . Of course, the problem, after I lost a decade or two being prevented from communicating further advances in em theory beyond http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm and a bit more – see my two PropIEEE articles reproduced in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/em.htm ; the problem then became one of trying to get “defenders of the faith” – professors and text book writers – to clearly state the theory they were defending. The first case was http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm , which no accredited expert will comment on in writing. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/44.htm . No student will dare to try to get his accredited lecturer to comment on it in writing.

Today, as a result of reading the conflab between Tombe and you lot, I have gained further insight. For instance take the insistence on retaining, unknown, within “classical electrodynamics” two contradictory versions of the TEM Wave; the Rolling Wave and the Heaviside Signal. http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm . Only today, having accepted that classical theory demands that the only TEM wave permissible for discussion is the sine wave, I realise an obvious contradiction even within the sine version of the TEM Wave. More obvious with the TEM step http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf , but still a blatant contradiction when we restrict ourselves to considering only the sine wave – in order to try to save classical theory.

Look at the TEM Wave moving forward at the speed of light. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CtnUETLIFs . The E field is verticaL Is it changing, or moving forward unchanged at the speed of light?

Now Feynman and Einstein say it is changing; and that changing E is what causes H, and changing H then causes E. See them at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0102em.htm . But if a changing vertical E, or dD/dt, causes magnetic field, the magnetic field will be a circular magnetic field in the horizontal plane, not merely a magnetic field out sideways – some of it will be forwards. But by definition a TEM wave only has sideways H field. Thus, the idea that the E field is changing undermines the TEM sine wave, as propounded by Einstein and Feynman http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm , So we have to drop their version and move to “The Heaviside Signal” the correct version, which is held by only 10% of accredited experts.

Now you know, David Tombe, that those who are attacking you will have stopped reading, and certainly stopped understanding, what I write, long before the present sentence. Classical theory survives because of the guarantee that at the crucial point in an argument which questions it, the “accredited expert”reader will have stopped understanding, if not stopped reading.

Ivor Catt. 20 February 2012

Later still.

Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
- G. Orwell, 1984, pub. Chancellor, 1984 edn., p225

Orwell’s description is not quite what we face. Rather, when the orthodox disciple senses that what he hears will not conform to the ruling paradigm, he realises that he does not have to use his full intelligence and concentration to follow the argument in the same way as he would continue to follow an orthodox argument which enhances the ruling paradigm. He does not exactly stop short by instinct; he merely reduces his critical and comprehensive faculties when dangerous – unorthodox – ideas threaten. We all have an understanding of the process within ourselves. When pursuing ideas which enhance the Conventional Wisdom, we apply our full attention and intelligence. When confronting possibly deviant thought, which we know will almost certainly prove to be ridiculous, a large part of our intellectual competence switches off. The inability of professors and text book writers to understand “The Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm illustrates the point. However, the above analysis does not explain why they feel free to say that they don’t understand it (to someone else, not to me), but every one of them refuses to say so in writing.

In all of this, the behaviour of all professors and text books writers is completely consistent. 100%, not 99% or 90% of these people will behave in the same defensive way.

A good illustration of this syndrome is the treatment of the Transverse Electromagnetic Wave (TEM Wave). Its very name, “wave”, befuddles the subject from the start. Along with Fourier, the name reinforces the half-formed idea that we are dealing only with sine waveforms. This lingering idea holds centre stage in spite of the fact that for fifty years since the introduction of digital electronics, the principle TEM Wave has been a step, or pulse. Still, if it discusses the TEM Wave at all, which is unlikely, today’s text book entitled “Electromagnetic Theory” will usually introduce Ѡ on page 2 of its treatment of the TEM Wave. Now the very idea that two contradictory versions of the TEM Wave have rubbed along side by side for 150 years with nobody noticing is so unlikely that the orthodox “expert” will not apply his brain properly when considering my article about it . The very idea that there might be two versions of the TEM Wave will remain unknown to all professors and text book writers into the future, perhaps for ever. In contrast, that same “expert” will demonstrate high intellectual competence when considering abstruse embroidering of conventional, classical theory, as in Wikipedia’s "Electromagnetism" or "Maxwell's Equations" .

Ivor Catt 20 February 2012

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

From: David Tombe

Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:20 AM

To: antenna-discussion@antennex.com

Subject: RE: [Antenna-discussion] How long does it take a light to start glowing?

Hi Kirk,
Thanks once again for your reply. I never at any stage did actually think that a compression wave in the electron cloud in the wire would propagate at anything near the speed of light, but that is exactly why I am asking you these questions.

You reiterated the standard textbook line that when the power is switched on, the energy propagates outwards in the space between the wires at the speed of light and in line with the Poynting vector.

But in order for the transverse step to exist across the two wires in the first place, there must be a charge difference between the two wires. One wire must have become more positive while the other wire must have become more negative. Mainstream accounts for this "extra charge" on the basis that the electron cloud has become compressed. But you yourself have admitted below that the compression wave for the electron cloud will be very slow.

Hence something is wrong with mainstream theory. How does the extra charge in the wire get ahead of the propagated step between the two wires without going faster than the speed of light.

This question is essentially the Catt Question, as asked by Ivor Catt back in the early 1980s. And you have not been able to answer this question.

Best Regards
David

> From: kirkmcd@princeton.edu
> To: antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 01:49:47 -0400
> Subject: [Antenna-discussion] How long does it take a light to start glowing?
>
> David,
>
> In the appended email you seem concerned with transient effects.
>
> You seem to want to relate electromagnetic phenomena to acoustic waves,
> where concepts like "compression" and "rarefaction" are relevant.
>
> While this is understandable, and was the attitude of the 1850's, subsequent
> understanding has led us away from such "mechanical" models when dealing
> with electromagnetic phenomena.
>
> This may seem undesirable to those of us who love mechanics, but it has been
> remarkably successful.
>
> ---------------
> When a switch closes, this permits electromagnetic wavefronts to propagate
> outwards at the speed of light to all parts of the circuit, with speed c =
> 3e10 cm/s, while the electron drift velocity is only of order 1 cm/s.
>
> As such, electric charges start moving throughout the entire circuit on the
> nanosecond time scale -- and do NOT depend on the kind of scenario that you
> invoke of "compression sound waves" with speed of ~ 1 cm/sec.
>
> If you were right, it would take several minutes for a light in your ceiling
> to start glowing after you flip on the light switch -- because your
> "compression" wave, with speed ~ 1 cm/s, to reach the light bulb from the
> switch.
>
> --------------
> The Maxwellian view is that once you close the switch, electromagnetic
> energy flows outwards at the speed of light, along lines of the Poynting
> vector (and NOT along the wires), and when that energy reaches the light
> bulb the latter can start glowing -- in few nanoseconds after the switch was
> closed.
>
> --Kirk
>
> PS I have written a couple of tech notes about such transient effects in
> circuits:
> http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/solenoid.pdf
>
> http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/wirefields.pdf
>
> PPS Richard: Your 124-frame animation suffers from the same conceptual
> problem.
>
> Transients currents in a circuit do NOT proceed slowly outwards from the
> switch, once closed, but start at any point in the circuit that is distance
> r from the switch after time Dt = r/c. As such, currents start flowing a
> points close to the switch, but on the "far" side of the circuit before they
> start flowing in the left and right "ends" of the circuit.......
>
> Your circuit model is, however, somewhat appropriate in cases where the
> "circuit" involves a transmission line, rather than a single wire loop.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Tombe
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 7:21 PM
> To: antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> Subject: Re: [Antenna-discussion] Transmission line pulses
>
>
> Kirk, Let's go right back to the beginning when we first switch an
> electric circuit on. There are two terminals at the battery. There is an
> outward wire and a return wire. Conventional theory tells us that when the
> steady state has been reached, there will be a current of electrons flowing
> through the circuit wire with a distinct drift velocity. We know that they
> don't all start moving at once. So the theory then goes that the electron
> closest to the battery moves first and when the next electron along feels
> it, it will move too, and so there will be a compression wave moving along
> the outward wire. We know that the compression wave moves faster than the
> actual electrons themselves. But nevertheless, the electrons behind the step
> will indeed be in a state of motion with a distinct drift velocity.
> Meanwhile, what is happening at the return wire? As a compression is
> building up on the outgoing wire behind the step, a rarefaction is arising
> behind the step in the return wi!
> re as the electrons start to move towards the battery. Is that the
> classical picture? If not, please tell me what the classical picture is.
> At any rate, we can switch the power off before the step has reached the
> open end, and the pulse will now be a discrete rectangular slab moving
> between the wires. What has happened in that case to the drift velocity of
> the electrons. How can you have a zone where the electrons have a drift
> velocity, when in front of that zone and behind that zone, the electrons
> don't have a drift velocity? And if the drift velocity has ceased to apply,
> what is the circulation that is causing the magnetic field as per Ampere's
> circuital law? Best Regards
> David
> > From: kirkmcd@princeton.edu
> > To: antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 17:11:54 -0500
> > Subject: Re: [Antenna-discussion] Transmission line pulses
> >
> > John,
> >
> > I agree, and have pointed this out to Dave, who professes not to
> > understand
> > the argument.
> >
> > Apparently linear mathematics is too difficult for him, and he wants an
> > entirely nonmathematical understanding of physics.
> >
> > Good luck to him -- but the evidence so far is that he misconstrues
> > everything he talks about in the technical realm.
> >
> > --Kirk
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > From: "John Bordelon" <j.bordelon@comcast.net>
> > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 2:18 PM
> > To: "Discussions of Antennas and Related Topics"
> > <antenna-discussion@antennex.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Antenna-discussion] Transmission line pulses
> >
> > > Perhaps the reason for the misunderstanding, David, is that two waves
> > > can
> > > exist on the same line and yet separated because the transmission line
> > > is
> > > a LINEAR SYSTEM. That means that the voltage at any point on the line
> > > is
> > > simply the vector sum of two (or more) waves on the line. The principle
> > > of SUPERPOSITION is therefore applicable and aids us in arriving at a
> > > solution. If you are not aware of the concept of superposition then you
> > > need to become familiar with it before attempting to progress in your
> > > understanding.
> > > John Bordelon, K4JIU
> > > Marietta, GA 30066
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:01 PM, David Tombe wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Hi Kirk, Once again you haven't answered the question. You
> > >> dived
> > >> for cover behind a mathematical expression exp(z - vt) and you
> > >> christened
> > >> the pulse a 'Gaussian pulse'. You then told me the two 'Gaussian
> > >> pulses'
> > >> can pass through each other because two waves can pass through each
> > >> other. What you haven't explained is how these two pulses can pass
> > >> through each other if we are tied to the mainstream belief that
> > >> electric
> > >> current is an actual flow of electrons along the wire. In fact you
> > >> haven't even explained how we can have such a pulse at all if electric
> > >> current is a flow of particles along a wire. Your Drude model merely
> > >> parroted the mainstream line on electric current, but it didn't explain
> > >> how two electric currents can pass right through each other.
> > >> As
> > >> regards transmission lines and capacitors, they both focus on the exact
> > >> same physical principles. I am fully aware that they are used for
> > >> different purposes, but I was focusing on the deeper underlying phy!
> > > si!
> > >> cs. They both centre around what happens at the step that propagates in
> > >> the space between the wires. They are both tied up with the
> > >> controversial
> > >> issue of displacement current and the issue of how the circulation can
> > >> be
> > >> completed across the gap at the step. If we understand what is
> > >> happening
> > >> in one, we will understand what is happening in the other, and after
> > >> that, the two can then return to their specific uses. I then note
> > >> that you say that the capacitor only has electric energy? Yes, in the
> > >> static state. But there is a magnetic field involved in the dynamic
> > >> state, and when we are studying transmission lines, we are always
> > >> looking
> > >> at the dynamic state. So you can't separate them on that argument.
> > >> Then you claimed that I didn't give an example of an inadequate
> > >> explanation for what happens when we first switch on an electric
> > >> circuit.
> > >> That is rather a tall order. I would have thought that the onus would
> > >> have been on you to give an adequate explanation of what ha!
> > > p!
> > >> pens, preferably without involving any maths.
> > >> Best Regards
> > >> David > From: kirkmcd@princeton.edu
> > >>> To: antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > >>> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:31:56 -0500
> > >>> Subject: Re: [Antenna-discussion] Transmission line pulses
> > >>>
> > >>> Dave,
> > >>>
> > >>> All I know about you is what I learn from you emails to this forum,
> > >>> every
> > >>> one of which spreads misinformation.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. "within the context of mainstream theory on electric current, how
> > >>> do
> > >>> two
> > >>> pulses in a transmission line pass right through each other as if they
> > >>> are
> > >>> waves?".
> > >>>
> > >>> OK
> > >>>
> > >>> I1 = exp(z - vt) This Gaussian pulse moves in the +z direction with
> > >>> speed
> > >>> v
> > >>>
> > >>> I2 = exp(z + vt) This Gaussian pulse moves in the -z direction with
> > >>> speed
> > >>> v
> > >>>
> > >>> Itotal = I1 + I2
> > >>>
> > >>> Done! The two pulse can coexist because electromagnetic phenomena
> > >>> are
> > >>> LINEAR.
> > >>>
> > >>> Each pulse is unaffected by the other.
> > >>>
> > >>> 2. "When I said that a transmission line is basically the same in
> > >>> principle as a capacitor, you retorted with the single word
> > >>> 'nonsense'.
> > >>> In actual fact, the only difference between a capacitor and a
> > >>> transmission
> > >>> line is that a capacitor concentrates a particular effect which is
> > >>> actually
> > >>> present in all open ended circuits, and in any circuit when we first
> > >>> switch
> > >>> the power on. "
> > >>>
> > >>> Again I say "nonsense".
> > >>>
> > >>> A "capacitor" stores charge/energy, but does not transmit these from
> > >>> place
> > >>> to place.
> > >>>
> > >>> A transmission line transmits energy from place to place.
> > >>>
> > >>> Electromagnetic energy can be characterized as partly electric and
> > >>> partly
> > >>> magnetic.
> > >>>
> > >>> In a transmission line there is in interplay between the electric and
> > >>> magnetic energies.
> > >>>
> > >>> A capacitor has only electric energy
> > >>>
> > >>> An inductor has only magnetic energy.
> > >>>
> > >>> And LC circuit has both electric and magnetic energy, and permits the
> > >>> interchange of these two types of energy.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you like thinking of transmission lines in terms of circuit
> > >>> elements,
> > >>> you
> > >>> can think of a transmission line as a sequence of LC circuits, with
> > >>> both
> > >>> capacitors and inductors.
> > >>>
> > >>> http://www.ece.uci.edu/docs/hspice/hspice_2001_2-269.html
> > >>>
> > >>> It is ridiculous to say that a circuit that involves both capacitors
> > >>> and
> > >>> inductors is "basically the same in principle as a capacitor".
> > >>>
> > >>> 3. "When I said that there is no adequate explanation in the
> > >>> literature
> > >>> for
> > >>> what happens when we first switch an electric circuit on, you replied
> > >>> with
> > >>> the single word 'nonsense'. But we didn't hear your
> > >>> explanation
> > >>> for what happens."
> > >>>
> > >>> You give no example of an "inadequate explanation".
> > >>>
> > >>> Millions of circuits with transient behavior have been well understood
> > >>> and
> > >>> analyzed in the literature.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, I infer that you can't follow any technical literature -- in which
> > >>> case
> > >>> one hardly knows how to begins "setting you straight".
> > >>>
> > >>> 4. "None of you have been able to explain how two lots of electrons
> > >>> moving
> > >>> in opposite directions along the same a wire, can pass right through
> > >>> each
> > >>> other as like a wave."
> > >>>
> > >>> This is a reprise of item 1, but with a more microscopic view.
> > >>>
> > >>> It sounds as if you are unfamiliar with the so-called Drude Model of
> > >>> electrical conduction, which dates from 1902
> > >>>
> > >>> http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/es154/lectures/lecture_2/drude_model/drude_model.html
> > >>>
> > >>> Here is a YOuTube video about this:
> > >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyX5I_io7bg
> > >>>
> > >>> Electrons don't "pass right through each other". Rather, they bounce
> > >>> around
> > >>> and pass by one another -- in that a wire is a 3-dimensional entity,
> > >>> not
> > >>> a
> > >>> 1-dimensional structure as you seem to imply.
> > >>>
> > >>> 5. "We can even see this by looking at an AC circuit. Based on
> > >>> mainstream's
> > >>> belief that we are dealing with a compression and rarefaction in the
> > >>> two
> > >>> limbs,"
> > >>>
> > >>> I have no idea what you are talking about here.
> > >>>
> > >>> ???? "Compression" and "rarefaction" in the "limbs" of a circuit.
> > >>>
> > >>> "Circuit" means loop, not limbs/arms ????
> > >>>
> > >>> "Compression" and "rarefaction" of what???????
> > >>>
> > >>> It sounds like you have a mechanical vision of a "circuit", and
> > >>> suppose
> > >>> that
> > >>> this view is "mainstream".
> > >>>
> > >>> Perhaps you have found a few other people who hold such views, but
> > >>> these
> > >>> views are not "mainstream", in my view.
> > >>>
> > >>> 6. "Finally, you said on one of your mails that the two transmission
> > >>> line
> > >>> pulses moving in opposite directions cancel each other completely,
> > >>> magnetic
> > >>> field and all, at the moment of pass over. If that were true, then
> > >>> what
> > >>> happens to the energy at this moment in time? Does the energy just
> > >>> momentarily disappear completely? "
> > >>>
> > >>> OK, let's go into more detail.
> > >>>
> > >>> I go back to item 1, in which two pulses were considered with Gaussian
> > >>> current forms.
> > >>>
> > >>> I did not specify the "circuit" that supported these pulses, so for
> > >>> simplicity let's consider a (lossless)coaxial cable (with vacuum
> > >>> between
> > >>> the
> > >>> inner and outer conductors, which we approximate as perfect
> > >>> conductors).
> > >>> The currents specified in item 1 flow on the inner conductor. Equal
> > >>> and
> > >>> opposite currents flow on the inside of the outer conductor.
> > >>>
> > >>> Then the magnetic field H at radius r between the inner and outer
> > >>> conductor
> > >>> is given by
> > >>> B = mu_0 I / 2 pi r.
> > >>> This field "circulates" around the inner conductor
> > >>>
> > >>> The electric field is directly radially, and has magnitude related
> > >>> related
> > >>> to that of the magnetic field by
> > >>> E = c B where c is the speed of light in vacuum)
> > >>>
> > >>> We must now be careful about signs.
> > >>>
> > >>> For the pulse with current
> > >>> I1 = exp(z -ct) [ since the speed of the pulse is c ]
> > >>> the magnetic field B1 is in the +phi direction
> > >>> and the electric field E1 is in the =r direction
> > >>>
> > >>> If we want the second pulse to "cancel" the first pulse at time t = 0,
> > >>> we
> > >>> must take its current to be
> > >>> I2 = - exp(z+ct)
> > >>> For the pulse the magnetic field B2 is in the -phi direction,
> > >>> and the electric field E2 is in the +r direction.
> > >>>
> > >>> So, at time t = 0, the total current is zero, and the total magnetic
> > >>> field
> > >>> is zero, but the total electric field is twice that of either pulse by
> > >>> itself
> > >>>
> > >>> At this special moment, all the field energy is "electric", but in
> > >>> general
> > >>> it is partly electric and partly magnetic.
> > >>>
> > >>> When the pulses are far apart, the energy is half electric and half
> > >>> magnetic.
> > >>>
> > >>> Hence the total energy is 4 times the electric energy of each pulse.
> > >>>
> > >>> When the two pulses "cancel" at time t = 0, the electric field is
> > >>> twice
> > >>> that
> > >>> of each pulse, the magnetic field is zero, and the total energy is 4
> > >>> times
> > >>> the electric energy of each pulse.
> > >>>
> > >>> That is, energy is conserved.
> > >>>
> > >>> What we learn is that the term "cancel" in the case of two
> > >>> counterpropagating pulses applies to the current and to the magnetic
> > >>> field,
> > >>> but it does not apply to the electric field or to the field energy.
> > >>>
> > >>> --Kirk
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --------------------------------------------------
> > >>> From: "David Tombe" <sirius184@hotmail.com>
> > >>> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 6:58 AM
> > >>> To: <antenna-discussion@antennex.com>
> > >>> Subject: Re: [Antenna-discussion] Transmission line pulses
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Kirk, I had seven e-mails from you this morning. They all
> > >>>> contained
> > >>>> quotes from my e-mails interspersed with a comment by yourself, and
> > >>>> this
> > >>>> made it all very hard for anybody on the thread to follow the
> > >>>> arguments.
> > >>>> Your comments were typically to state the single word 'nonsense', or
> > >>>> to
> > >>>> ascribe to me views which I do not hold, or to make the undermining
> > >>>> claim
> > >>>> that I do not understand these things. It's hardly worth me
> > >>>> going over all seven e-mails, so we will use the single e-mail below
> > >>>> as
> > >>>> a
> > >>>> case in point. First of all, you haven't answered the
> > >>>> question
> > >>>> that was asked. That question is "within the context of mainstream
> > >>>> theory
> > >>>> on electric current, how do two pulses in a transmission line pass
> > >>>> right
> > >>>> through each other as if they are waves?". You have simply not
> > >>>> answered
> > >>>> that question. Instead you have chosen to try and discredit my
> > >>>> understanding of the historical evolution of the electromagnetism. So
> > >>>> let's go over your criticisms in your mail below, point!
> > >>>> by point. (1) You say that I seem to be stuck with a
> > >>>> pre-Maxwellian view in which electric and magnetic phenomena are
> > >>>> unrelated
> > >>>> and in which there is no such thing as electromagnetism.
> > >>>> Anybody
> > >>>> who has any knowledge of my writings will know that this is
> > >>>> completely
> > >>>> and
> > >>>> utterly untrue. (2) When I said that a transmission line is
> > >>>> basically the same in principle as a capacitor, you retorted with the
> > >>>> single word 'nonsense'. In actual fact, the only difference
> > >>>> between a capacitor and a transmission line is that a capacitor
> > >>>> concentrates a particular effect which is actually present in all
> > >>>> open
> > >>>> ended circuits, and in any circuit when we first switch the power on.
> > >>>> (3) When I said that there is no adequate explanation in the
> > >>>> literature
> > >>>> for what happens when we first switch an electric circuit on, you
> > >>>> replied
> > >>>> with the single word 'nonsense'. But we didn't hear your
> > >>>> explanation for what happens. (4) You then went on to say
> > >>>> tha!
> > >>>> t I don't have a clue as to the character of the 150 year old
> > >>>> explanation
> > >>>> for the transmission line. You further went on to state that every
> > >>>> line
> > >>>> in
> > >>>> my e-mails is bogus. So in effect, you have been asked a
> > >>>> simple
> > >>>> question. You have failed to answer that question, but instead you
> > >>>> have
> > >>>> resorted to claiming that I am all wrong. In your other e-mails you
> > >>>> said
> > >>>> things to the extent that a wave equation is all we need, and that we
> > >>>> can
> > >>>> discard the mechanical model for the wave once we have the
> > >>>> mathematics
> > >>>> in
> > >>>> place. That's a bit like arguing that we don't need the sea in order
> > >>>> to
> > >>>> have a tidal wave, so long as we have the mathematical wave equation.
> > >>>> As regards the pulses in transmission lines, I see here a duality in
> > >>>> nature which mainstream cannot explain. None of you have been able to
> > >>>> explain how two lots of electrons moving in opposite directions along
> > >>>> the
> > >>>> same a wire, can pass right through each other as like a wave. And if
> > >>>> we
> > >>>> are going to use mainstream the!
> > >>>> ory, then that is exactly the picture that we are looking at.
> > >>>> Something!
> > >>>> is badly wrong with mainstream electric current theory.
> > >>>> We
> > >>>> can even see this by looking at an AC circuit. Based on mainstream's
> > >>>> belief that we are dealing with a compression and rarefaction in the
> > >>>> two
> > >>>> limbs, the second cycle would simply reverse the effect of the first
> > >>>> cycle. But we know that this doesn't happen. Positive energy is
> > >>>> injected
> > >>>> into the circuit with each cycle. That fact cannot be explained by
> > >>>> mainstream theory. Finally, you said on one of your
> > >>>> mails
> > >>>> that the two transmission line pulses moving in opposite directions
> > >>>> cancel
> > >>>> each other completely, magnetic field and all, at the moment of pass
> > >>>> over.
> > >>>> If that were true, then what happens to the energy at this moment in
> > >>>> time?
> > >>>> Does the energy just momentarily disappear completely?
> > >>>> Best Regards
> > >>>> David
> > >>>>> From: kirkmcd@princeton.edu
> > >>>>> To: antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > >>>>> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 22:13:16 -0500
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Antenna-discussion] Height of dipole above the ground
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Dave,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "As regards blending Ldi/dt and Cdv/dt, what I meant was
> > >>>>> 'manipulating
> > >>>>> them
> > >>>>> together mathematically to derive the telegraphy equation'. While
> > >>>>> this
> > >>>>> can
> > >>>>> be done mathematically, it overlooks the fact that these two
> > >>>>> equations
> > >>>>> are
> > >>>>> dealing with different physical effects in the space surrounding the
> > >>>>> wire."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> You seem to be stuck with a pre-Maxwellian view in which electric
> > >>>>> and
> > >>>>> magnetic phenomena are unrelated and there is no such thing as
> > >>>>> electromagnetism.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "Basically, a transmission line is the same in principle as a
> > >>>>> capacitor
> > >>>>> circuit."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Nonsense!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "There is no adequate explanation in mainstream physics for what
> > >>>>> happens
> > >>>>> when such a circuit is initially switched on."
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Nonsense!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> "Some kind of wave effect simultaneously travels up both the
> > >>>>> outgoing
> > >>>>> wire
> > >>>>> and the return wire, but there is no adequate explanation for how
> > >>>>> this
> > >>>>> can
> > >>>>> possibly happen within the context of the conventional idea that
> > >>>>> electric
> > >>>>> current is a flow of charged particles. "
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Nonsense!
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It seems you don't have a clue as to the character to the
> > >>>>> 150-year-old
> > >>>>> explanation of transmission lines.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> There seems little point in trying to explain things to you, given
> > >>>>> your
> > >>>>> apparent lack of understanding of the most basic aspects of
> > >>>>> electromagnetism. Rather, I merely point out to the List you
> > >>>>> essentially
> > >>>>> every line of your emails is bogus.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --Kirk
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------
> > >>>>> From: "David Tombe" <sirius184@hotmail.com>
> > >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 1:38 PM
> > >>>>> To: <antenna-discussion@antennex.com>
> > >>>>> Cc: <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>; <icatt@btinternet.com>
> > >>>>> Subject: Re: [Antenna-discussion] Height of dipole above the ground
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Alan, Ideally, I think that I am on the wrong forum here. It
> > >>>>>> might
> > >>>>>> be best if I were to leave this forum and that we continue this
> > >>>>>> discussion
> > >>>>>> with the two people who I have copied in at cc. As regards
> > >>>>>> blending
> > >>>>>> Ldi/dt and Cdv/dt, what I meant was 'manipulating them together
> > >>>>>> mathematically to derive the telegraphy equation'. While this can
> > >>>>>> be
> > >>>>>> done
> > >>>>>> mathematically, it overlooks the fact that these two equations are
> > >>>>>> dealing
> > >>>>>> with different physical effects in the space surrounding the wire.
> > >>>>>> One
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>> dealing with the magnetic disturbance surrounding the wires, while
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>> other is dealing with linear polarization between the wires.
> > >>>>>> As
> > >>>>>> regards the practical problems in cable telegraphy, it is not my
> > >>>>>> field
> > >>>>>> and
> > >>>>>> I don't really know anything about the practical problems. However,
> > >>>>>> Ivor
> > >>>>>> Catt and Forrest Bishop believe that there are problems, and I
> > >>>>>> fully
> > >>>>>> concur with them for theoretical reasons that the pulse that
> > >>>>>> travels
> > >>>>>> between two wires cannot be understood in terms o!
> > >>>>>> f conventional electric current theory. Basically, a
> > >>>>>> transmission
> > >>>>>> line is the same in principle as a capacitor circuit. There is no
> > >>>>>> adequate
> > >>>>>> explanation in mainstream physics for what happens when such a
> > >>>>>> circuit
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>> initially switched on. Some kind of wave effect simultaneously
> > >>>>>> travels
> > >>>>>> up
> > >>>>>> both the outgoing wire and the return wire, but there is no
> > >>>>>> adequate
> > >>>>>> explanation for how this can possibly happen within the context of
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>> conventional idea that electric current is a flow of charged
> > >>>>>> particles.
> > >>>>>> Conventional theory collapses even further when it comes to
> > >>>>>> switching
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>> power off again before the pulse has reached the end of the road.
> > >>>>>> This
> > >>>>>> leaves us with a rectangular slab of energy propagating in the
> > >>>>>> space
> > >>>>>> between the wires, and this slab still contains all the physical
> > >>>>>> characteristics of an electric current. It is like a moving
> > >>>>>> electric
> > >>>>>> current. And the situation becomes even more mysterious in that a
> > >>>>>> similar
> > >>>>>> pulse coming from the other direction appears to pass r!
> > >>>>>> ight through the outgoing pulse, yet this couldn't possibly happen
> > >>>>>> within
> > >>>>>> the conventional theory of electric current. The true mechanism is
> > >>>>>> clearly
> > >>>>>> not understood by mainstream. Indeed, electric current is clearly
> > >>>>>> not
> > >>>>>> understood by mainstream. And whereby these rectangular
> > >>>>>> energy
> > >>>>>> pulses have an associated magnetic field, the main action in the
> > >>>>>> propagation mechanism seems to centre round a linear displacement
> > >>>>>> in
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>> space between the wires. But whatever this displacement is, it is
> > >>>>>> not
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>> same thing as the displacement in the displacement current that is
> > >>>>>> used
> > >>>>>> in
> > >>>>>> the derivation of the wireless EM wave equation.
> > >>>>>> Best Regards David
> > >>>>>>> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:56:39 +0000
> > >>>>>>> From: alan.boswell@blueyonder.co.uk
> > >>>>>>> To: antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Antenna-discussion] Height of dipole above the
> > >>>>>>> ground
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> David
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> You need to explain more what you mean when you say transmission
> > >>>>>>> lines
> > >>>>>>> are not properly understood. I thought our understanding was
> > >>>>>>> almost
> > >>>>>>> perfect :) Text books cover them ad infinitum. What aspect of
> > >>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>> performance of transmission lines is not properly understood?
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> When it comes to Ldi/dt and Cdv/dt, I do not recognise what you
> > >>>>>>> mean
> > >>>>>>> by 'blending'. Circuit theory, and the mathematical solutions
> > >>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>> are associated with it, do not usually refer to blending, and it
> > >>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>> not a process that has so far been used in physics or mathematics,
> > >>>>>>> but
> > >>>>>>> it is commonly used in chemistry and cooking :) I don't yet know
> > >>>>>>> how
> > >>>>>>> blending can be used to improve our knowledge of transmission
> > >>>>>>> lines
> > >>>>>>> or
> > >>>>>>> the solutions of differential equations.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Since you are say the theory of electric current needs
> > >>>>>>> overhauling,
> > >>>>>>> please set us off in the direction you think we should be going .
> > >>>>>>> .
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Alan G3NOQ
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 8 March 2012 12:18, David Tombe <sirius184@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Alan, Your statement, 'the radiated field comes from the
> > >>>>>>>> antenna
> > >>>>>>>> current' gets to the main issue that my intervention has been
> > >>>>>>>> leading
> > >>>>>>>> up to. Yes indeed, something moves along inside the coaxial cable
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> it carries a signal. The antenna then converts that same signal
> > >>>>>>>> into
> > >>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>> wireless telegraphy form, and it is carried on through space in
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> absence of a cable. The important thing to note is that
> > >>>>>>>> this
> > >>>>>>>> can be a two way process. (1) We know that wireless waves
> > >>>>>>>> can
> > >>>>>>>> pass right through each other in opposite directions in space.
> > >>>>>>>> That
> > >>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>> not in question, and it follows from standard wave theory.
> > >>>>>>>> (2)
> > >>>>>>>> The balls in a Newton's cradle on the other hand don't pass right
> > >>>>>>>> through each other. They recoil, although they can look as if
> > >>>>>>>> they
> > >>>>>>>> are
> > >>>>>>>> passing right through each other. Nevertheless, there are similar
> > >>>>>>>> principles of matching involved in both the Newton's cradle and
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> cable telegraph. The question is, 'do the pulses of electrical
> > >>>>>>>> energy
> > >>>>>>>> in the cable !
> > >>>>>> pass!
> > >>>>>>>> right through each other as in the case of EM waves in space, or
> > >>>>>>>> do
> > >>>>>>>> they redistribute and recoil as like in the Newton's cradle,
> > >>>>>>>> giving
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> impression that they have passed right through each other?' This
> > >>>>>>>> may
> > >>>>>>>> at
> > >>>>>>>> first seem like a question in which the answer is obvious. But if
> > >>>>>>>> we
> > >>>>>>>> agree that the pulses pass right through each other, then
> > >>>>>>>> conventional
> > >>>>>>>> theory on electric current falls right through. What many people
> > >>>>>>>> fail
> > >>>>>>>> to realize is that these pulses have their beginnings in exactly
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> like manner to the electric current in a capacitor circuit. These
> > >>>>>>>> pulses ARE electric currents. But they detach from the power
> > >>>>>>>> source
> > >>>>>>>> prior to arriving at the open end. Their physical nature can't
> > >>>>>>>> have
> > >>>>>>>> suddenly changed at the moment of cut-off from the power source.
> > >>>>>>>> So
> > >>>>>>>> what we in effect have is a propagated electric current,
> > >>>>>>>> propagating
> > >>>>>>>> along between two wires, as like a trolley photon. And if a
> > >>>>>>>> similar
> > >>>>>>>> pulse coming in from the antenna at the other end collides with
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> outgoing pulse, an!
> > >>>>>> d i!
> > >>>>>>>> f both they pass right through each other like two wireless
> > >>>>>>>> waves,
> > >>>>>>>> then there is something very seriously wrong with the
> > >>>>>>>> conventional
> > >>>>>>>> theory of electric current. And at any rate, even if we establish
> > >>>>>>>> that
> > >>>>>>>> two colliding electric currents do redistribute and recoil in
> > >>>>>>>> some
> > >>>>>>>> subtle snake-like manoeuvre, then there is still something
> > >>>>>>>> seriously
> > >>>>>>>> wrong with the conventional theory of electric current. And that
> > >>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> point I was making as regards v = Ldi/dt and i = Cdv/dt. We
> > >>>>>>>> cannot
> > >>>>>>>> blend these two equations together in cable telegraphy. Cable
> > >>>>>>>> telegraphy is not properly understood in modern physics.
> > >>>>>>>> Maxwell's
> > >>>>>>>> curl
> > >>>>>>>> equations in the combined state cannot be used in cable
> > >>>>>>>> telegraphy
> > >>>>>>>> because the displacement current term in cable telegraphy is not
> > >>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> same kind of physical disturbance as the displacement current
> > >>>>>>>> term
> > >>>>>>>> in
> > >>>>>>>> wireless telegraphy. Conventional theory on electric current
> > >>>>>>>> needs
> > >>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>> be radically overhauled before we can fully understand what
> > >>>>>>>> exactly
> > >>>>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>> going on inside a trans!
> > >>>>>> mission line.
> > >>>>>> Best
> > >>>>>> Regar!
> > >>>>>>>> ds David
> > >>>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:36:02 +0000
> > >>>>>>>>> From: alan.boswell@blueyonder.co.uk
> > >>>>>>>>> To: antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Antenna-discussion] Height of dipole above the
> > >>>>>>>>> ground
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Shon
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> You have to remember that the radiated field comes from the
> > >>>>>>>>> antenna
> > >>>>>>>>> current, and the maximum current is in the centre of the dipole
> > >>>>>>>>> (assuming a half-wave dipole). So if you have a choice of
> > >>>>>>>>> raising
> > >>>>>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>>> centre or the ends, choose the centre.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 22 feet is not a great height for an antenna, so I would try and
> > >>>>>>>>> raise
> > >>>>>>>>> the whole antenna if you can. But If expense is limited, you
> > >>>>>>>>> need
> > >>>>>>>>> to
> > >>>>>>>>> raise the centre some more, and don't worry too much about the
> > >>>>>>>>> ends.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Ideally, the antenna is a half-wave above the ground, that means
> > >>>>>>>>> 33
> > >>>>>>>>> ft
> > >>>>>>>>> high for 14 MHz.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Alan G3NOQ
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On 8 March 2012 05:47, Shon Edwards <sre.1966@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> I have read the ARRL antenna book, looked up web sites, asked
> > >>>>>>>>>> gurus,
> > >>>>>>>>>> all to
> > >>>>>>>>>> no avail. I am wondering if it will improve my dipole's
> > >>>>>>>>>> performance, not
> > >>>>>>>>>> to raise the apex of the antenna (which is 22 feet off the
> > >>>>>>>>>> ground),
> > >>>>>>>>>> but the
> > >>>>>>>>>> two ends (5 feet off the ground). I can raise both ends now to
> > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>>>> similar
> > >>>>>>>>>> height. One person only has told me he does not think this
> > >>>>>>>>>> will
> > >>>>>>>>>> do
> > >>>>>>>>>> any
> > >>>>>>>>>> good, but I would like to know for sure, before I go the
> > >>>>>>>>>> expense
> > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>>>> effort.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for any help,
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> 73 de Shon, K6QT
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>>> Shon R. Edwards,
> > >>>>>>>>>> Amateur call: K6QT
> > >>>>>>>>>> 1039 N 2575 W
> > >>>>>>>>>> Layton, UT, 84041-7709
> > >>>>>>>>>> USA
> > >>>>>>>>>> e-mail: sre.1966@gmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>>> phone: (801) 444-3445
> > >>>>>>>>>> cell: (801) 336-7635
> > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>>>>> This message was sent to: alan.boswell@blueyonder.co.uk
> > >>>>>>>>>> Antenna-discussion mailing list
> > >>>>>>>>>> Antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>>>>>>>>> For Upload of Attachments:
> > >>>>>>>>>> http://download.antennex.com/listarch/psupload.html
> > >>>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives:
> > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.antennex.com/listlogin/
> > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Go to the web page link below and unsubscribe the above email
> > >>>>>>>>>> address this message was sent to.
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Go to this web page at the bottom:
> > >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>>>> This message was sent to: sirius184@hotmail.com
> > >>>>>>>>> Antenna-discussion mailing list
> > >>>>>>>>> Antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > >>>>>>>>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>>>>>>>> For Upload of Attachments:
> > >>>>>>>>> http://download.antennex.com/listarch/psupload.html
> > >>>>>>>>> Searchable Archives:
> > >>>>>>>>> http://www.antennex.com/listlogin/
> > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe:
> > >>>>>>>>> Go to the web page link below and unsubscribe the above email
> > >>>>>>>>> address
> > >>>>>>>>> this message was sent to.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Go to this web page at the bottom:
> > >>>>>>>>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>>> This message was sent to: alan.boswell@blueyonder.co.uk
> > >>>>>>>> Antenna-discussion mailing list
> > >>>>>>>> Antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > >>>>>>>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>>>>>>> For Upload of Attachments:
> > >>>>>>>> http://download.antennex.com/listarch/psupload.html
> > >>>>>>>> Searchable Archives:
> > >>>>>>>> http://www.antennex.com/listlogin/
> > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe:
> > >>>>>>>> Go to the web page link below and unsubscribe the above email
> > >>>>>>>> address
> > >>>>>>>> this message was sent to.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Go to this web page at the bottom:
> > >>>>>>>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>> This message was sent to: sirius184@hotmail.com
> > >>>>>>> Antenna-discussion mailing list
> > >>>>>>> Antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > >>>>>>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>>>>>> For Upload of Attachments:
> > >>>>>>> http://download.antennex.com/listarch/psupload.html
> > >>>>>>> Searchable Archives:
> > >>>>>>> http://www.antennex.com/listlogin/
> > >>>>>>> To unsubscribe:
> > >>>>>>> Go to the web page link below and unsubscribe the above email
> > >>>>>>> address
> > >>>>>>> this message was sent to.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Go to this web page at the bottom:
> > >>>>>>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> This message was sent to: kirkmcd@princeton.edu
> > >>>>>> Antenna-discussion mailing list
> > >>>>>> Antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > >>>>>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>>>>> For Upload of Attachments:
> > >>>>>> http://download.antennex.com/listarch/psupload.html
> > >>>>>> Searchable Archives:
> > >>>>>> http://www.antennex.com/listlogin/
> > >>>>>> To unsubscribe:
> > >>>>>> Go to the web page link below and unsubscribe the above email
> > >>>>>> address
> > >>>>>> this
> > >>>>>> message was sent to.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Go to this web page at the bottom:
> > >>>>>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>> This message was sent to: sirius184@hotmail.com
> > >>>>> Antenna-discussion mailing list
> > >>>>> Antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > >>>>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>>>> For Upload of Attachments:
> > >>>>> http://download.antennex.com/listarch/psupload.html
> > >>>>> Searchable Archives:
> > >>>>> http://www.antennex.com/listlogin/
> > >>>>> To unsubscribe:
> > >>>>> Go to the web page link below and unsubscribe the above email
> > >>>>> address
> > >>>>> this message was sent to.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Go to this web page at the bottom:
> > >>>>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> This message was sent to: kirkmcd@princeton.edu
> > >>>> Antenna-discussion mailing list
> > >>>> Antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > >>>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>>> For Upload of Attachments:
> > >>>> http://download.antennex.com/listarch/psupload.html
> > >>>> Searchable Archives:
> > >>>> http://www.antennex.com/listlogin/
> > >>>> To unsubscribe:
> > >>>> Go to the web page link below and unsubscribe the above email address
> > >>>> this
> > >>>> message was sent to.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Go to this web page at the bottom:
> > >>>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> This message was sent to: sirius184@hotmail.com
> > >>> Antenna-discussion mailing list
> > >>> Antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > >>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>> For Upload of Attachments:
> > >>> http://download.antennex.com/listarch/psupload.html
> > >>> Searchable Archives:
> > >>> http://www.antennex.com/listlogin/
> > >>> To unsubscribe:
> > >>> Go to the web page link below and unsubscribe the above email address
> > >>> this message was sent to.
> > >>>
> > >>> Go to this web page at the bottom:
> > >>> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> This message was sent to: j.bordelon@comcast.net
> > >> Antenna-discussion mailing list
> > >> Antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > >> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >> For Upload of Attachments:
> > >> http://download.antennex.com/listarch/psupload.html
> > >> Searchable Archives:
> > >> http://www.antennex.com/listlogin/
> > >> To unsubscribe:
> > >> Go to the web page link below and unsubscribe the above email address
> > >> this message was sent to.
> > >>
> > >> Go to this web page at the bottom:
> > >> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > This message was sent to: kirkmcd@princeton.edu
> > > Antenna-discussion mailing list
> > > Antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > > http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > > For Upload of Attachments:
> > > http://download.antennex.com/listarch/psupload.html
> > > Searchable Archives:
> > > http://www.antennex.com/listlogin/
> > > To unsubscribe:
> > > Go to the web page link below and unsubscribe the above email address
> > > this
> > > message was sent to.
> > >
> > > Go to this web page at the bottom:
> > > http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > This message was sent to: sirius184@hotmail.com
> > Antenna-discussion mailing list
> > Antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> > http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> > For Upload of Attachments:
> > http://download.antennex.com/listarch/psupload.html
> > Searchable Archives:
> > http://www.antennex.com/listlogin/
> > To unsubscribe:
> > Go to the web page link below and unsubscribe the above email address this
> > message was sent to.
> >
> > Go to this web page at the bottom:
> > http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message was sent to: kirkmcd@princeton.edu
> Antenna-discussion mailing list
> Antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> For Upload of Attachments:
> http://download.antennex.com/listarch/psupload.html
> Searchable Archives:
> http://www.antennex.com/listlogin/
> To unsubscribe:
> Go to the web page link below and unsubscribe the above email address this
> message was sent to.
>
> Go to this web page at the bottom:
> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message was sent to: sirius184@hotmail.com
> Antenna-discussion mailing list
> Antenna-discussion@antennex.com
> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion
> For Upload of Attachments:
> http://download.antennex.com/listarch/psupload.html
> Searchable Archives:
> http://www.antennex.com/listlogin/
> To unsubscribe:
> Go to the web page link below and unsubscribe the above email address this message was sent to.
>
> Go to this web page at the bottom:
> http://lists.antennex.com/mailman/listinfo/antenna-discussion

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Wed March 21, 2012;

Ivor,

If I follow your comments below, you acknowledge that the letter of Pepper
that you post is irrelevant to the "Catt anomaly" (despite your web page
appearing to imply that Pepper's letter does address that "anomaly", and is
evidence of "confusion" among those who consider this "anomaly").

Do you then acknowledge that the communication from Josephson correctly
resolves this (trivial) anomaly?

If so, there is no more "anomaly" in a technical sense, just misleading web
pages about it.

--Kirk

-----Original Message-----
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 3:56 PM
To: kc3mx@yahoo.com ; kirkmcd@Princeton.EDU
Subject: Fw: a reply of sorts

I am now sending this to Harry, copy to the Professor.
The behaviour of Professor Kirk T McDonald <kirkmcd@princeton.edu> is
disgraceful, and I look forward to an apology from him.
Ivor Catt

-----Original Message-----
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:46 PM
To: Forrest Bishop ; sirius184@hotmail.com ; bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Subject: Re: a reply of sorts

Dear All,
Coming home from abroad, I find this isolated email. It is extraordinary.
I don't think http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/71.htm should be
called an "explanation", of Cattq or of anything else..
However, leaving that aside, the next section is bizarre.

"> But Catt tries to confuse the reader by first presenting a link to an
answer
> to a different question.
> http://www.ivorcatt.com/2812.htm " - Prof. Kirk
But 2812 is the answer Pepper gave to cattq.
See http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm , pages 3 and 4, published in the
1990s.
Interestingly, Nobel Prizewinner Brian Josephson
bdj10@cam.ac.uk<bdj10@cam.ac.uk> recently said in an email that cattq now is
different from the cattq delivered to Pepper in the 1990s. I reacted very
strongly to this. The version Pepper replied to in 1993 is in the book in
his college library published shortly afterwards, now on the www at
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm , and is identical with the version
today, at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm . Not a word has changed in 30
years. It is not my fault that Pepper's reply to the one and only question
he ever received is incompetent and irrelevant. It is a pity that seeing its
irrelevance, Kirk assumed that it was an answer to a different question.

This habit of entrenched professors to confuse the issue and falsify history
is really extraordinary. I feel they should take their profession and
discipline more seriously and deal with it in a disciplined way. This
delivery of misinformation is very irresponsible.

Please would Forrest and David circulate this email to those who have been
misled by Kirk, below. I was not on the circulation.

Ivor Catt



-----Original Message-----
From: Forrest Bishop
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 9:34 AM
To: ivor catt
Subject: a reply of sorts




On 16 March 2012 20:56, Kirk T McDonald <kirkmcd@princeton.edu> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> The "Catt Anomaly" is displayed on a web page
> http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/cattq.htm
> that also has a link to its explanation.
> http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/71.htm
>
> But Catt tries to confuse the reader by first presenting a link to an
> answer
> to a different question.
> http://www.ivorcatt.com/2812.htm
> Catt then implies that because the different question has a different
> answer
> there is an "anomaly".
>
> There is indeed "anomalous" behavior going on here. ?Catt is trying to
> deceive the reader, having no doubt first deceived himself.
>
> --Kirk
>
> PS ?Michael Pepper states "If I understand the position correctly, your
> question concerns the source of the charge at a metal surface which by
> responding to the presence of the EM wave ensures that the reflectivity of
> the metal surface is virtually unity."
>
> Pepper believes he was asked to discuss the character of charges on/near
> the
> surface of a "mirror".
>
> Catt claims he asked Pepper a different question, about charges on wires
> of
> a transmission line, but does not show us what Pepper was actually asked.
> This is probably because it appears that Catt never directly asked Pepper
> anything, but first asked something of someone else, who then asked Pepper
> something.
>
> The Catt/Pepper story is a sorry one of miscommunication, not of
> "anomalous"
> physics.
>
> PPS ? ?Dear List,
>
> Please feel free to contact me directly about this at
> kirkmcd@princeton.edu