-----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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Josephson
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
--On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 15:38 +0100 Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> The conclusion is that Josephson also has no
background in digital
> electronics, because he cannot determine correctly whether Catt or Pepper
> are discussing the TEM step in a competent way.
Not as much as you, I admit, but I am nevertheless familiar with the basics
(it may be relevant to note that Wireless World has published a
contribution from me regarding distortion in Class D amplifiers and ways to
overcome it). Some people here might argue that you are playing with words
at this point in the discussion.
Brian
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Harry,
“There are no priests.” I
forget why and when someone said this to me.
I am occasionally allowed to
dine at High Table in my college, Trinity College, Cambridge. Newton’s College,
it is proud to claim to be the most scientific of all 20 Cambridge colleges. It
has many Nobel Prize Winners, and the number in Cambridge, or perhaps in
Trinity, I forget which, approximately equals the number in France.
Lord Rees (and previous
Masters Atyah of Trinity with whom I have crossed
swords) is now President of the Royal Society.
I have regarded High Table in
Trinity as a centre of Establishment science. However, this last time a change
came over me. I thought of them as just another group of fortunate people, but
not a Centre for Knowledge Brokers. The Science Establishment has no centre.
This makes it virtually invulnerable.
I have pointed out to
Josephson and to John Roche that should they decide to support me, that would
not help, but would damage them. By supporting me, they would immediately be
excluded form the (non existent)
Inner Circle, as Herbert Dingle was when he questioned Relativity. Dingle found
he could no longer publish.
Josephson’s response to my
question is particularly unimportant, because he is already blighted for trying
to bring the paranormal into science. As I remember, his PhD students were
removed from him, and he complains that he cannot publish.
The reason for addressing
Josephson is that no unblighted “expert” on
electromagnetic theory – professor or text book writer – will make any comment
at all. By listening to Josephson, we can learn about the range of knowledge
and grasp of such people, because he is similar to them. From Josephson, I have
learnt a lot about the limits of knowledge and grasp of such people as Pepper,
“knighted for services to physics” and editor of the top Royal Society journal.
Only today, perusing the two emails at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x25w.htm
, I have grasped something very important. There are two distinct
electromagnetic theories. In none of my published or other writings over fifty
years will you find curl or div, but Josephson employs them when he thinks he
is discussing “The Catt Question”. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
. He thinks frequency and other red herrings are relevant.
We know that no “expert” is
familiar with the two contradictory versions of the TEM Wave, see http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm
. The divs and curls are not benign because it draws
one to “The Rolling Wave”, which makes cattq much
more difficult to grasp. More generally, div and curl come form
the territory where E causes H and H causes E. No “expert” knows Heaviside, who
said this was not so. “For instance (ibid, art. 451, page 4), he says, “It carries all
its properties with it unchanged,” which is a clear statement of the Heaviside
signal. Heaviside mentions the slab elsewhere in his writings. One does not
conceive of slabs rolling, or generating shear forces or stresses. Almost by
definition, a slab, like a slab of heavy granite, moves forward unchanged at
constant velocity.”
I suggest that even minor Catt
theories, for instance the reciprocating capacitor, will be ignored for at
least a century. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/965.htm
“Modern Physics” is replete with
the trappings of mediaeval religion – wave-particle dualism (= Trinity),
Authority, Uncertainty, and many unscientific concepts at its core. It also has
“The Index” of banned books.
The way in which professional
scientists are able to suppress any major scientific advance is well worth
study. Brian Josephson has been a valuable help in getting me to understand a
complex system. After all the enormous benefits scientific advance has given to
society for perhaps two centuries, it is a major challenge and achievement to
prevent further advance.
Ivor
From: HARRY
RICKER
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 3:36 PM
To: ; Ivor
Catt
Subject: Re: Fw: reciprocationg
capacitor
|
Ivor,
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2012 12:13 AM To: .... .... Cc: .... .... Subject: reciprocationg capacitor http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9653.jpg Dear Professor Brian
Josephson, You have written that classical
theory predicts the waveforms that I predicted in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9653.jpg
when an infinitely long coaxial cable is connected to a piece of charged
coax. It would be very helpful if
you repeated your prediction, even better with the addition of explanation,
now that my predictions have been confirmed by experiment. The journal “Electronics
World” is planning to publish the experimental results with the claim that
this revolutionises theory. Since you are a Nobel Prizewinner,
you could save the journal from committing a gaffe by publishing such claims. The editor of “Electronics
World” is Svetlana Josifovska. Ivor Catt @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -----Original
Message----- From: Brian
Josephson Sent: Tuesday, May
22, 2012 11:37 AM To: Ivor Catt On 20 May 2012, at
00:13, Ivor Catt wrote: >
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9653.jpg > > Dear Professor
Brian Josephson, > You have
written that classical theory predicts the waveforms that I predicted in
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9653.jpg when an infinitely long coaxial cable is
connected to a piece of charged coax. > It would be
very helpful if you repeated your prediction, even better with the addition
of explanation, now that my predictions have been confirmed by experiment. Ivor, This is just a quick
analysis -- let me know if you see any difficulties with it. Your plots
appear to show a step function propagating at a certain velocity, which is what
you expect for systems obeying the wave equation (which has a general
solution of the form f(x-vt), with arbitrary f).
The only complication is that I also see the step function being reflected
from the left hand end. This one treats by putting in the boundary condition
-- no current if it is open circuit, zero voltage if it is shorted. You can
satisfy that boundary condition by superposing two waves travelling in
opposite directions with the appropriate phase relationship between them. Brian ------ Brian D. Josephson Emeritus Professor
of Physics, University of Cambridge @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -----Original
Message----- From: Brian
Josephson Sent: Thursday, May
24, 2012 9:11 AM To: Ivor Catt Cc: Subject: Re:
reciprocating capacitor On 23 May 2012, at
23:19, Ivor Catt wrote: > Dear Professor
Josephson, > "Am I
missing something?" - BDJ > Yes. >
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9653.jpg predicts what would happen if the charge
was not stationary before the switch was closed. The predictions were made on
the revolutionary assumption that the charge, or rather energy, was
reciprocating at the speed of light before the switch was closed, half in
each direction. In contrast, you say "The charge is stationary until you
close the switch," The predicted waveforms are drawn for every 10 nsec. Initially, only half the energy to the right comes
out. What exactly is happening, if as you state the charge was stationary
before the switch was closed? > What waveforms
within the capacitor after the switch closed does your theory predict? Surely
not the waveforms predicted in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9653.jpg
? Resonances are to be
expected in such a system. If you want to assert that the standard theory
does not predict your observations, it is up to you to 'do the math' to prove
it -- I have neither the desire nor the time to undertake this myself. B. ------ Brian D. Josephson Emeritus Professor
of Physics, University of Cambridge @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -----Original
Message----- From: Ivor Catt Sent: Wednesday, May
30, 2012 8:17 PM To: Forrest Bishop Cc: Brian Josephson
; Subject: reciprocationg capacitor Professor Brian
Josephson fails to come to terms with the imperatives of Maxwell's Equations. From
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/em.htm , the attachment goes through the argument. We deliver energy
from battery into a transmission line. It is proved that
this energy has a certain voltage/current ration Zo and a certain velocity c. We switch the
battery off, and then trap the energy in one section of the transmission line. Professor Brian Josephson says that when
trapped, this energy will stop travelling and be stationary. He is
defying Maxwell's Equations, which, as
proven, only permit this energy to continue to travel at c, the velocity of light for the dielectric. If we obey Maxwell,
we have to accept the Reciprocating Capacitor. Ibvor Catt @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -----Original
Message----- From: Brian
Josephson Sent: Wednesday, May
30, 2012 9:16 PM To: Ivor Catt Cc: Subject: Re:
reciprocating capacitor On 30 May 2012, at
19:59, Ivor Catt wrote: > Maxwell's
Equations will not allow this energy to slow down at all, let alone become
stationary, as you wrongly said it did in your email of 23 May, see below. > > Dear Ivor, > > > The charge is
stationary until you close the switch, and of course after > you close the
switch there is change, so it is not stationary, as the > capacitor discharges. Am I missing something? This is getting
extremely tedious. I visibly did not say the _energy_ was stationary above --
if you read the above as such, you need to look more carefully or else get
glasses. Before you bring
this point up, I have said the electrons are moving and also that the charge
is stationary. There is no contradiction here as these are two different
levels of description: microscopic and bulk. Finish! (an word known to all foreigners, used as a command). This
exchange is hereby deemed pointless. Brian ------ Brian D. Josephson Emeritus Professor
of Physics, University of Cambridge @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -----Original
Message----- From: Ivor Catt Sent: Thursday, May
31, 2012 11:24 AM To: Brian Josephson Cc: mikegi ; 'Anthony Wakefield' ; brian@coeffic.demon.co.uk
; 'Cameron Mercer' ; charles.coultas@o2.co.uk ; dswalton@plus44.net ; 'Emory
Garth' ; foggitt@hotmail.com ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; hock@blueyonder.co.uk
; jack.dinsdale@tinyworld.co.uk ; jvospost3@gmail.com ;
krystof.nemec@gmail.com ; Libuse.Mikova@seznam.cz ; malcolm_davidson@thewisdomwheel.com
; nemecuf@gmail.com ; john.roche@linacre.ox.ac.uk Subject:
reciprocating capacitor "But what
happens when you come to the beginning again?' Ivor ventured to ask. `Suppose we change
the subject,' Brian Josephson interrupted, yawning. `I'm getting tired of this. I vote the young lady tells us a
story.' " - with apologies to Lewis
Carroll, "Alice in Wonderland" http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/alices-adventures-in-wonderland/chapter-07.html Ivor Catt @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Forrest Bishop replies with, among
other things: Only one sentence in Pepper relates to The Catt Question: "As the wave travels at light
velocity, then charge supplied from outside the system would have to travel
at light velocity as well, which is clearly impossible."-MP, June 21,
1993
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ From: malcolmd3111@hotmail.com Hello
Ivor and Forrest, I have
just read or rather reread the Pepper paragraph. "Pepper's words are an
assault on the subject", sorry I couldn't resist. Now I realize why I
never made comment. (And) that is because he writes piffle. His following
sentence; "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, hence
providing waveguide action and related applications." I don't
understand this sentence, however he says "by
responding to the presence of the EM wave", which means that he believes that EM
energy is the primary source. Thus current i does not cause H. By
bringing frequency into the discussion he immediately negates any comments he
may have. As has been mentioned on these threads many times, frequency is
ultimately an observed phenomenon and has no place with this initial step. His
only comment which pertains to the Catt question is; "As
the wave travels at light velocity, then charge supplied from outside the
system would have to travel at light velocity as well, which is clearly impossible." However he does not
answer the actual question. Regards, Malcolm The
important thing about this comment from Malcolm Davidson is that Brian
Josephson says the Pepper
comment on "The Catt Question"
is sensible, which it is obviously not. This means that neither of them have
significant grasp of a TEM step travelling down a transmission line. They
carry too much irrelevant baggage; Maxwell,
and today’s electronic engineers, do not introduce
the electron into the argument, as Josephson does. Electronic engineers can
grasp the situation, since they limit it to electric charge, electric
current, electric field, magnetic field. Pepper
and Josephson cannot “see!” a step, but rather, through Fourier, see an array
of sine waves, and so get lost in detail. They
also have wave-particle duality. Both
bring in plasma. –
Ivor Catt, 1 June 2012. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Here,
Josephson brings in frequency when discussing “The Catt Question” Liba ----------
Původní zpráva
---------- On 20 Oct 2014, at 00:09,
<Libuse.Mikova@seznam.cz> <Libuse.Mikova@seznam.cz> wrote: @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ -----Original
Message----- From:
Brian Josephson Sent:
Saturday, November 08, 2014 10:56 AM To: ivor catt Subject:
Re: "Complicated" Catt Question On 8 Nov
2014, at 10:45, Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com> wrote: > Dear
Brian Josephson, > > It
would be difficult to come up with a “Question” simpler than “The Catt Question”.
However, probably you and Pepper find it complicated because you impose
“frequency” onto a Question involving a single step. Frequency is not
involved in “The Catt Question.” > Sorry,
Ivor, that was loose wording on my part. It is the answer that is
complicated, not the question. Glad to see you are up and
(metaphorically) running again. Best
wishes, Brian J. |