Dear Ivor
and Forrest,

For the record, I wish to stay
out of this discussion, but I wanted to say this:

"I'm surprised to hear a circuit engineer say that. People who design

audio circuits know very well that the fidelity with which sounds like

drumbeats (which are a kind of pulse) are reproduced is a function of

the frequency response of the circuit." -BJ

These are also analog
circuits, which are not in the scope of a digital discussion. Not to mention analog is outside of your focus with Theory C. Digital
sound circuits (like computer soundcards) ignore frequency response, and
instead overcome the issue with buffering and compression.

Just my tidbit. Please do not copy this into any replies sent to
Brian Josephson.

Anon

**From**: Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk>

**To**: Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>, ....

**Cc**: ....

**Sent**: Monday, April 02, 2012 at 11:53 am

**Subject**: Re: vxB in Maxwell's Original
Equations

--On 2 April 2012 15:05:37 +0100 Ivor Catt
<icatt@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Dear Brian Josephson,

> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9658.jpg

> It is very valuable indeed that you have commented. You are very

> welcome as Devil's Advocate. What has been stifling has been the

> total lack on response from all accredited
experts during many

> decades, except when forced to respond.

> This situation continues.The 109 experiment
involves climbing inside

> the charged capacitor to see what happens when a capacitor which has

> stayed quietly charged for some time is given the chance to discharge

> at one end. We know that, surprisingly, as the manual for the 109

> says, the output is half amplitude and double length. It took me more

> than 40 years to realise that I could look inside the capacitor, and

> I would find incontrovertible proof that while supposedly steadily

> charged, before beginning to be discharged, the energy in the

> capacitor was continually reciprocating from end to end at the speed

> of light. This fact, if established, will be totally outside the

> range of classical electromagnetism.

As I indicated, the only way that could be justified is to set up the

situation in mathematical terms and see what accepted theory actually

predicts taking all relevant factors into account (rather than

asserting it by diktat, as people have been doing here). I shall be

very surprised if it is any different from what you observed.

> Again, as with "The Catt

> Question" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm ,
you are totally wrong

> to drag in the concept of frequency. No frequency is involved. Before

> we close the switch to discharge the capacitor, it is, according to

> classical theory, simply a steady charged capacitor with charge

> sitting on the two plates. There is no movement, no frequency.

> Now, suddenly, we realise that far from sitting unmoved, all the

energy

> was moving all the time at the speed of light throughout the time the

> capacitor sat "steadily charged".

> Now we close the switch to discharge the capacitor. That is a single

> action. No frequency is involved in a single action at only one

> instant in time. A single pulse is emitted. Again, no frequency is

> involved.

I'm surprised to hear a circuit engineer say that. People who design

audio circuits know very well that the fidelity with which sounds like

drumbeats (which are a kind of pulse) are reproduced is a function of

the frequency response of the circuit.

"It's the maths, stupid" (after Clinton)

Brian

-----

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson ::::::::
bdj10@cam.ac.uk

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

-----Original Message-----

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 3:22 PM

To: Ivor Catt ; mikegi ; 'David Tombe' ; john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk ;
malcolmd3111@hotmail.com ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com

Cc: dswalton@plus44.net

Subject: Re: vxB in
Maxwell's Original Equations

--On 3 April 2012 14:27:54 +0100 Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com> wrote:

> As I have said many times, I gave up saying
that there was anything

> wrong with classical theory,or promoting my own theory, thirty years

> ago, and since then
only ask for clarification of the entrenched, and

> completely correct,
classical theory. The response form all

> accredited experts is
to refuse to reply

Well, it seems obvious to me that if you suddenly
to something at one

point on a transmission line the change will propagate
in both

directions, since locally the situation is
symmetric. I don't consider

it good use of my time solving the equations to
confirm that this is

what the equations predict.

B.

-----

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

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

This last above is delicious.

"If
you have got anything new, in substance or in method, and want to propagate it
rapidly, you need not expect anything but hindrance from the old practitioner -
even though he sat at the feet of Faraday..... he is very disinclined to
disturb his ancient prejudices. But only give him plenty of rope, and when the
new views have become fashionably current, he may find it worth his while to
adopt them, though, perhaps, in a somewhat sneaking manner, not unmixed with
bluster, and make believe he knew all about it when he was a little boy!"

Oliver Heaviside, "Electromagnetic Theory
Vol. 1", p337, 1893.

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

[July 2013. We now have the experimental results ,which were as predicted.

Professor
Brian Josephson has jumped the gun in defending classical theory. He is
defending it against a predicted experimental result, not an actual result.
This is something Heaviside never thought of. The 109 experiment has never been
conducted. At present we have nothing new. All we have is prediction based on
the new Catt theory, which we will call Theory CC. It is also called the Catt,
or Contrapuntal, model for a charged capacitor. This is that the so-called
“steady charged capacitor” is not steady at all. It contains energy, half of it
travelling to the left at the speed of light, and the other half travelling to
the right. Theory CC contradicts classical theory, which is that a steady
charged capacitor is stationary and contains only electric energy associated
with the positive charge on the top plate and the negative charge on the bottom
plate. There is no magnetic energy because there is no magnetic field.

The
manual for the 1960s Tektronix 109 Reed Relay Pulse Generator says that if a
length of charged coax (which is a capacitor is discharged into an infinitely
long coaxial cable, out comes a half amplitude pulse whose length os twice the time delay from end to end of the capacitor. Nol explanation has ever been given for this under
classical theory.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/97rdeat2.jpg
Theory CC says that http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/97rdeat2.jpg

“energy current Exh
cannot stand still, it can only travel at the speed of light. Any apparently
steady field is a combination of two energy currents travelling in opposite
directions at the speed of light.” This is totally revolutionary, defying
classical theory, and very simply explains why the output foprm
the charged coax is half amplitude and double length. No explanation has ever
been propounded which is compatible with classical theory, which is that a
charged capacitor has only electric field, and everything is stationary.

40 years
after using the 109, I realised that IK could look inside the “steady charged
capacitor”, which nobody has ever done. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/965.htm I predicted certain waveforms. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9653.jpg http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9656.jpg http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9659.jpg
. These waveforrms have never been seen, but are
predicted by Theory CC. Josephson now says they are predicted by classical
theory, which they are not. He needs to say that classical theory, or an
extension of classical theory, predicts these waveforms.

We now
need to investigate the detail of what classical theory must predict. Already
under the Tektronix manual, we have the surprising situation as follows; half
voltage and double length output. A steady charged capacitor is static, with
only steady electric field and electric field energy. When a switch is closed
at one end, only half the energy is emitted, at which moment it suddenly
changes from all electric field and energy into half electric field and energy,
and half magnetic fie4ld and energy. Also, only half the energy near to the
switch comes out, one quarter electric and one quarter magnetic, or perhaps as
half ExH energy. It is not clear which according to
classical theory, which remains silent on these matters because the TEM Wave is
neglected in classical electromagnetic theory.

We
predict that close to the outputting end of the coax, the voltage will drop to
half. Josephson’s idea of using the concept of “symmetry” does not work. Before
the switch closes, the energy beyond the switch is zero and to the left of the
switch is a full 10v. Afterwards, towards the right it rises to 5v and to the
left it drops to 5v. A situation where on the one side there is a 5v rise and
on the other a 5v drop is not one of symmetry. Symmetry would demand a rise on
both sides or a fall on both sides.

Now the
length of the region which has dropped from 10v to 5v at the right hand end of
the coax is predicted to increase. Why does classical theory say this happens,
if the experimental result confirms that it does? Remember, classical theory
demands that the energy at the far left end of the capacitor, which still does
not know the switch has closed, be static electrical energy. What does
classical theory say is the nature of the energy in the right hand now 5v part
of the capacitor, which has lost halfi ts energy?

We have a
double bind here. A revolutionary
theory, Theory CC, predicts certain waveforms. Classical theory makes no
predictions. However, Josephson, apologist for classical theory, says classical
theory will confirm unconfirmed predictions, but uses the bogus idea of
symmetry, which collapses on inspection, because a rise of 5v is not symmetrical
with a fall of 5v. It is not part of classical theory that if some energy
suddenly has an opportunity to advance in a certain direction, it runs away in
the opposite directions. Of course, Josephson has not said what classical
theory says actually happens, and this is because classical theory says nothing
on the matter. We await Josephson’s addition to classical theory.

Another
approach. Tektronix says that the 5m long 10v coax emits a pulse of 5v 10m
long. What is the explanation of classical electromagnetic theory? If the delay
from end to end of the coax is 25nsec, why does some of the energy come out
after nearly 50nsec – double the delay down the cable? Where was it hiding for
so long? If it came out so long and this was not because at the start it was
travelling in the wrong direction, then why and where did it hide for so long?
Classical theory already had difficulties in the 1960s when the pulse generator
put out a double length half amplitude pulse. Nobody noticed the problem.
Perhaps, along with Josephson, they were all too busy constructing ever more
convoluted mathematics. Note that he thinks that the answer to this matter
is in mathematics, which he says he is
too busy to investigate.

Ivor Catt 3
April 2012

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

Some electrons were sitting on
the outer shield of a steadily charged length of coaxial cable. Suddenly a
switch to the right opened up a path to the right into an infinitely long
coaxial cable. After a very brief discussion, half the electrons decided to go
off to the right, suddenly travelling at the speed of light. The other half of
the electrons stayed where they were sitting. Or perhaps classical theory, if
it says anything, will tell us what really happens.

Ivor Catt 3
April 2012

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

--On 3 April
2012 21:13:57 +0100 Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com> wrote:

> If a closing switch joins this coax to an infinitely long coaxial

> cable on the right, electromagnetic energy, which was stationary,

> immediately advances to the right at the speed of light. Only half of

> the energy does so. Classical theory does not tell us exactly what

> the other half does, or even why only half exits the cable.

> I would be grateful if Brian Josephson says whether the above is

> meaningless.

Not meaningless, merely wrong.

B.

-----

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

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

-----Original Message-----

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 10:32 AM

To: Brian Josephson ; Forrest Bishop ; David Tombe ; Cameron Mercer ; john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk

Subject: Re: Reference

Dear Professor Josephson,

"There appears to be some confusion here
between movement of a _signal_ and

movement of electrons." - BJ

This confusion is in your head, and in the head of
every other professor and

text book writer. If they got over their confusion,
classical

electromagnetism would collapse.

When a logic gate delivers a logic step between the
signal line and the

ground line, is there movement of electrons back
towards the source in the

(bottom) ground line?

If the step finds a too high termination and some
reflects, does the

reflected signal contain electrons flowing along
the (bottom) ground line in

the forward direction on top of the backwards flow
of electrons involved in

the back part of the step?

Now I think I see why what for us is an obvious
problem is camouflaged. I

will restate it. When the logic step advances
forwards, it is accompanied by

a forward electric current in the top conductor. If
some reflects, the

reflection involves electric current in the
backward direction travelling

past the next part of the forward current.

I suggest that not only you, but all professors and
text book writers,

cannot think your way through all of this. That is
why classical theory

survives.

However you care to think of it, current or
electrons, does classical theory allow it to flow in both directions along a
wire at the same time?

Ivor Catt

-----Original Message-----

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 9:25 AM

To: Ivor Catt ; Forrest
Bishop ; David Tombe ; Cameron Mercer ;

john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk

Subject: Re: Reference

There appears to be some confusion here between
movement of a _signal_

and movement of electrons.

B.

--On 16 April 2012 09:19:58 +0100 Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>

wrote:

> “Dave and I never lighted on the more obvious
case, of two positive

> pulses travelling in opposite directions down
a coaxial cable. –

> Ivor”

> That is both true and untrue. When a logic
signal is not terminated

> properly at its destination, some of it
reflects. Then, some field

> and also some current travels back in the
opposite direction. We have

> two electric currents travelling in opposite
directions along a wire.

> Thus, a perfectly routine case of an
improperly terminated pulse

> undermines classical theory, of electrons
hopping along from atom to

> atom. Why has nobody ever noticed this?
Because it is hallowed by

> routine. It is impossible to get anyone to
look at such a routine

> situation and look for the fatal flaw which it
represents, that two

> ExH fields may well
be able to travel through each other, but under

> classical theory two electric currents cannot.
Too obvious, and so

> too “daring” to point it out. That is why we
should have migrated

> to two pulses travelling through each other.
Your animations cited

> below do not do that.

> I agree that this is silly. Your animations
should suffice, and

> sending two pulses through each other says
nothing more. However, I

> realised that nobody could cope with the idea
that anyone who

> improperly terminated a pulse should have seen
that the reflection

> undermined the whole business of thinking that
a TEM Wave had on its

> edges electric current travelling alongside.
We can look at David

> Tombe, and see
whether he is able to see the obvious, that if we

> terminate a signal travelling along a 50 ohm
cable with 100 ohms so

> that some reflects, then electric currents are
travelling along the

> same wire in opposite directions. At that
point we will be forced to

> realise that he is unfamiliar with sending
logic pulses from one

> logic gate to the next. On the other hand, all
those who are familiar

> with this will have been so browbeaten with
fancy maths making then

> think they are not bright enough to believe
their own thoughts, and

> so keep quiet.

-----

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

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

Professor Joswe4phson’s remarks give us valuable
insight into why “accredited experts” cannot see the obvious, so that classical
theory survives.

It had not occurred to me that confusion over the
nature of electric current, and that it is really electrons flowing in the
opposite direction, would help “experts” to not see the obvious – that when a
TEM signal reflects, there are electric currents flowing in a wire in two
directions at once.

Josephson said; “There appears to be some confusion
here between movement of a _signal_ and movement of electrons.

B.

Couple this with wave-particle duality and add some
photons to the brew, and the idea that a step is a combination of sine waves,
and they are unable to see the TEM step clearly, let only when it reflects.
Their brains are in a confused mess, so thye cannot
grasp “The Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
or “The Second Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf
and also of course the question above about a reflecing
step travelling through itself.

Ivor Catt 16 April 2012

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

-----Original Message-----

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 11:33 AM

To: Ivor Catt ; Forrest
Bishop ; David Tombe ; Cameron Mercer ;
john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk

Subject: Re: classical em

--On 16 April 2012 11:08:37 +0100 Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>

wrote:

> However you care to think of it, current or electrons,
does classical

> theory allow it to flow in both directions
along a wire at the same

> time?

> Ivor Catt

Ans.: if you are thinking in terms of current, two
currents can cancel

each other out. If you are thinking in terms of
electrons, electrons

are flowing in both directions all the time. The
current that appears

in the equations, or that is registered by an
ammeter, is an average

motion, each electron in the region contributing;
there is no

inconsistency.

All that your emails demonstrate is your ignorance
of basic physics:

Pepper was right in this regard.

B.

-----

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

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

-----Original Message-----

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 11:26 AM

To: Ivor Catt ; Forrest
Bishop ; David Tombe ; Cameron Mercer ;
john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk

Subject: Re: Reference

And still he insists he is right! If you shake a
rope, a pulse travels

along a rope. Does the rope therefore travel along
the rope? No.

Your analysis is faulty: the electrons do not have
to follow the pulse.

B.

--On 16 April 2012 10:32:19 +0100 Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>

wrote:

> "There appears to be some confusion here
between movement of a

> _signal_ and movement of electrons." - BJ

> This confusion is in your head, and in the
head of every other

> professor and text book writer. If they got
over their confusion,

> classical electromagnetism would collapse.

>

> When a logic gate delivers a logic step
between the signal line and

> the ground line, is there movement of
electrons back towards the

> source in the (bottom) ground line?

> If the step finds a too high termination and
some reflects, does the

> reflected signal contain electrons flowing
along the (bottom) ground

> line in the forward direction on top of the
backwards flow of

> electrons involved in the back part of the
step?

> Now I think I see why what for us is an
obvious problem is

> camouflaged. I will restate it. When the logic
step advances

> forwards, it is accompanied by a forward
electric current in the top

> conductor. If some reflects, the reflection
involves electric current

> in the backward direction travelling past the
next part of the

> forward current.

> I suggest that not only you, but all
professors and text book

> writers, cannot think your way through all of
this. That is why

> classical theory survives

-----

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

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

-----Original Message-----

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 4:30 PM

To: Ivor Catt ; Forrest
Bishop ; David Tombe ; Cameron Mercer ;
john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk

Subject: Re: classical em

--On 16 April 2012 14:39:58 +0100 Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>

wrote:

> Consider two positive pulses travelling along
a coaxial cable, one

> from the left and the other from the right.
Each pulse has an

> electromagnetic field and associated electric current
and charge.

> Maxwell's Equations show the relationship
between field and

> associated electricity. While these two pulses
overlap, the "current

> that appears in the equations" [BJ]
cancel, and the fields continue

> at the speed of light without their associated
currents.

> "All that your emails demonstrate is your
ignorance of basic

> physics:" - BJ

> Does the "basic physics" link
current with magnetic field always, or

> only sometimes? Do the two currents correlate
with their own magnetic

> fields before the "two currents (can)
cancel" - BJ , or after? Or

> does the electron flow, not the
"current", or both, correlate with

> the field?

> Do the two currents remain in the "basic
physics" in order to

> severally correlate with their fields, but at
the same time, in some

> sense "two currents can cancel each other
out"?

> What gets to the end and lights the lamp, the
current i, or the field

> ExH, or both?

You tell me -- it's in the maths!

B.

-----

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

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

This email from Professor Post may help to clarify
the situation.

-----Original Message-----

From: Jonathan Post

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 12:48 AM

To: David Tombe

Cc: bdj10@cam.ac.uk ; icatt@btinternet.com ;
forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; myfakeemail13@aol.com ; john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk

Subject: Re: two currents

Catt has interpreted measurements that he made as
indicating that a

certain kind of electromagnetic signal can travel
in two directions at

once in a circuit. He also says that this is
nowhere in the

literature. I have no problem with the first
interpretation, for

reasons that I verbally explained. The second claim
may be true, but

I have not undertaken the literature search. I
think that Brian

Josephson agrees with my point. I am interested in
coming to agreement

with Ivor Catt and
Forrest Bishop, two remarkable men.

Ivor Catt has nontraditional
theories, but does know some Math, and

does do careful and publishable experiments.

David Tombe makes almost
universally invalid qualitative arguments by

analogy and "word salad."

As a teacher and author, I deeply depend on
analogies and metaphors.

However, in Science, metaphor is always trumped by
the proper

combination of Mathematical models and laboratory
experiments.

Even when David Tombe is
right -- in the way that a stopped clock is

right twice per day -- his process of thought and
communication is in

and of itself crackpot. IMHO -- in my humble
opinion.

Brian,

Since "Theory C" uses the same maths as
classical electromagnetism, it is part of classical theory. There is nothing
new in Theory C.

In Theory C, the symbols rho and i represent, not charge and current, but mathematical
manipulations of electric field and magnetic field. There is therefore no
change in theory if electric current does not exist. What matters it that the maths remain the same. Whether i exists, or is merely the non-existent mathematical
manipulation of something real, E, has no significance in science.

No wonder it was difficult to determine your views
on science. Or do I mean "theoretical physics"?

http://www.ivorcatt.com/2_4.htm

Theory C. Theory C asserts that if a battery is
connected via two wires to a lamp, there is no electric current in the wires.
However, energy current travels from battery to lamp in the dielectric between
the wires.

I need to ponder what you mean by "physical
reality". Perhaps you could help me.

Ivor Catt

-----Original Message-----

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:43 AM

To: Ivor Catt ; Forrest
Bishop ; David Tombe ; Cameron Mercer ;
john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk

Subject: Re: Reference

--On 16 April 2012 23:07:05 +0100 Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>

wrote:

> What I have only just realised is that in the
case of Josephson we

> can bypass “The Catt Question”, because
Josephson insists that

> the maths of a theory fully defines the theory

Yes, that's what theoretical physics is all about.
You've got it! Now

if you ever found a situation where the physical
reality definitely did

not accord with the maths that would be something
else, but nothing

anyone has said so far as done this.

Brian

-----

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

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

-----Original Message-----

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 2:40 PM

To: Brian Josephson ; Forrest Bishop ; David Tombe ; Cameron Mercer ; john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk

Subject: Re: Reference

"So we are really talking about a difference
in interpretation of the

theory, not a difference in the theory." BJ

No. You regard two totally different theories as actually
the same if they

use the same maths. For me, the existence or
non-existence of electric

current indicates two totally different theories,
whether they use the same

maths or not. Your idea, that the proper definition
of a theory is its

maths, is absurd, even if common among highly
regarded scientists today. You

are in "good" company, because Maxwell
said his equations (which to you

means his theory) apply equally well if there is,
or if there is not,

instantaneous action at a distance.

http://www.ivorcatt.com/2613.htm

I should advise you that what I wrote as a
reduction of absurdum of your

position led to your writing "Thanks for the
clarification. So we are

really talking about a difference in interpretation
of the theory, not a

difference in the theory." - BJ

A theory (classical) which has electric current as
real is not the same as a

theory (theory C) which says electric current does
not exist in its primary

role, of helping a battery to light a lamp (whether
or not the maths is the

same). It would be very interesting if you
disagreed with the last sentence.

Do you?

Ivor

-----Original Message-----

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 12:19 PM

To: Ivor Catt ; Forrest
Bishop ; David Tombe ; Cameron Mercer ;

john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk

Subject: Re: Reference

--On 17 April 2012 10:58:52 +0100 Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>

wrote:

> Since "Theory C" uses the same maths
as classical electromagnetism,

> it is part of classical theory. There is
nothing new in Theory C.

> In Theory C, the symbols rho and i represent, not charge and current,

> but mathematical manipulations of electric
field and magnetic field.

> There is therefore no change in theory if
electric current does not

> exist. What matters it
that the maths remain the same. Whether i

> exists, or is merely the non-existent
mathematical manipulation of

> something real, E, has no significance in
science.

> No wonder it was difficult to determine your
views on science. Or do

> I mean "theoretical physics"?

Ivor,

Thanks for the clarification. So we are really
talking about a

difference in interpretation of the theory, not a
difference in the

theory.

> Theory C. Theory C asserts that if a battery
is connected via two

> wires to a lamp, there is no electric current
in the wires. However,

> energy current travels from battery to lamp in
the dielectric between

> the wires.

It follows that you are using the word 'current' in
a different way

from everyone else, and one in which what an
ammeter is measuring

something other than current. Humpty Dumpty would
have approved!

>

> I need to ponder what you mean by
"physical reality". Perhaps you

> could help me.

That's one for the philosophers, and they have
about half a dozen

different answers. Does the 'Working Circuit Designer'
need to worry

about such issues just as long as his circuit does
what is required of

it, which is independent of these esoteric
considerations? Here are

some insights:

<http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9b3_1187304555>

Brian

-----

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

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

-----Original Message-----

From: Brian Josephson

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 3:20 PM

To: Ivor Catt ; Forrest
Bishop ; David Tombe ; jvospost3@gmail.com

Cc: myfakeemail13@aol.com ;
john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk

Subject: Re: two currents

--On 17 April 2012 14:51:47 +0100 Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>

wrote:

> “Plasmon frequency” has nothing to do with a
logic step. And yet

> Josephson thinks the Pepper answer to “The
Catt Question” was

> relevant to the Question!

Once again you show your unfamiliarity with Fourier
analysis. Sigh!

-----

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

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

-----Forwarded
Message-----

From: Forrest Bishop

To: Ivor Catt

Subject: Re: Reference

This the reason it may take 1000 years to extinguish the "Church of
Electric Current" (and Darwinism, Plate Tectonics, relativity, etc.). The
Establishment is not founded on logic and reason. It is a sado-masochistic
hierarchy of domination and submission that relies on fear and on a con.
Climbing up the hierarchical ladder becomes the imperative for the student;
understanding the natural world outside the hierarchy has little to do with
that. Just pointing out the obvious.

Forrest

**From:** Forrest
Bishop

**Sent:** Wednesday, April 18, 2012 11:18
PM

**To:** David Tombe
; icatt@btinternet.com
; myfakeemail13@aol.com

**Subject:** RE: E and H

David,

Agreed for different reasons that free space and guided TEM waves are a bit
different, but. The guided TEM wave is actually the one we know the most about.
We have supposedly mapped outs its transverse field lines, something that has
never been done for e.g. radio waves. That may sound preposterous, but every
place I've looked shows un-physical summations of unknown fields. The primary
difference I see is in the geometry of the fields: the guided wave terminates
electric lines on conductors but the free-space wave cannot. The electric lines
apparently just taper off to nothing with no charge
termination. This is the "Side of the Laser Beam" issue. Photon has
the same issue.

There is a third case to consider, one I've put some time into: the waveguide.
In this case, the TEM wave is partly free and partly guided. Again, mainstream
obscures what is going on just as for the antenna cases (and reactive power,
and free space waves, and photons, and, and). For
this case, the obscurity is created by breaking solutions to Maxwell's
equations into longitudinal and transverse solutions, i.e. by assuming the
conclusion. That gives rise to the alleged TE, TM modes, which are simply artifacts of superposed TEM waves bouncing back and forth
inside the tube, very much like the static electric field of a Catt Capacitor
is an artifact of reciprocating energy current. In
the "TEM Waveguide", in the TE modes, we still have a possible charge
termination and can pretend to calculate a charge density and distribution
which moves slower than c, but the charge distribution for the bouncing TEM
wave moves faster than c, at the phase velocity in fact. That's one reason they
have to obscure it- it's even worse than the Catt Question.

Turning to the TM modes, which are simply TE modes with the roles of the 2
fields reversed, now we have a **B**-field termination on the conductor and
electric fields making loops in the longitudinal direction (Div**E**
=0), ie no charge to terminate on and some sort of
intermittent current for the **B** lines I guess. So mainstream actually has
two additional creatures here to account for.

At any rate, the field lines of the TEM waves that make up the TE, TM modes
have also been mapped after a fashion. Problem is, when the end of the
waveguide is flared out to form a horn antenna, these TEM waves are launched-
at the bounce angle by the way, and have to "some how"
turn into free space radio waves.

If the TEM waves in the waveguide (which are fed by TEM waves from a two
conductor line by the way) are different fro the ones
in free space, then some sort of new process has to take place at the mouth of
the horn and another one earlier at the feed. I don't think there is any new
physics here, it's just the same TEM wave changing its geometry to suit its
environment. So instead of giraffes and hippos it would be more akin to German
Shepherds and Schnauzers.

Forrest

-----Original
Message-----

From: David Tombe

To: icatt@btinternet.com, forrestb@ix.netcom.com, myfakeemail13@aol.com

Subject: RE: E and H

OK, in the wireless case,

div (**E**x**H**)
expands to 1/2(mu)dH^2/dt - 1/2(epsilon)dE^2/dt

This is a symmetrical expansion which implies that the rate of flow of energy
associated with **E**x**H**
is equally due to both the electric part **E** and the magnetic part **H**.

However, in the transmission line, curl **E** = 0, and so the magnetic part
disappears when the divergence is expanded. This means that the divergence of **S**
is only equal to the rate of flow of the electric energy.

Best Regards

David

From: icatt@btinternet.com

To: sirius184@hotmail.com; forrestb@ix.netcom.com;
myfakeemail13@aol.com

Subject: Re: E and H

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 21:23:23 +0100

What
do you mean by “symmetrical”?

Ivor

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

"If
you have got anything new, in substance or in method, and want to propagate it
rapidly, you need not expect anything but hindrance from the old practitioner -
even though he sat at the feet of Faraday..... he is
very disinclined to disturb his ancient prejudices. But only give him plenty of
rope, and when the new views have become fashionably current, he may find it
worth his while to adopt them, though, perhaps, in a somewhat sneaking manner,
not unmixed with bluster, and make believe he knew all about it when he was a
little boy!"

Oliver Heaviside, "Electromagnetic Theory
Vol. 1", p337, 1893.