The Clarendon Guru who moved away.

 

“He has moved away from the topic.” – Dr. John Roche

You said he was expert in electromagnetic theory, at the Clarendon. How can an expert move away from the subject which generates his salary?

 

I think that what I have discovered about the decline of electromagnetic theory indicates a decline across science. I now feel that my important task is to chronicle what happens today for the benefit of those who conduct an inquest in 2040 [more likely 2050] when it will be obvious to everyone that science has ground to a halt.

 

See http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x256.pdf and the end panel in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x256.pdf , “They are lost in a cloud of dubious mathematics and early 20th century delusions .... “. What we have in electromagnetic theory is a “lateral, arabesque”, where the science establishment drifted away from the subject to a pseudo-subject, and lost competence in the real subject, centred today on the TEM Wave. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2808.htm . It is not clear to me that it is ethical to cover up for their ignorance. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm . The damage they are dong is enormous, more than the damage by Opus Dei. Their bizarre garbage is driving all bemused students away from electromagnetic theory.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations  and http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2bg.pdf . The guru you jousted with, Jackson, says that (the centrepiece of today’s electromagnetism,) the TEM Wave, is “a degenerate form”.

 

As a very brave and public spirited person when it came to Opus Dei http://www.odan.org/tw_inner_world_of_opus_dei.htm you appeared to be the ideal person to try to help in the present crisis, and also to contribute insight which would help those conducting the inquest in 2040. This, particularly since “Modern Physics” should be classified as religion, not science. I think that Frazer’s 19th century book “The Golden Bough” would class the later “Modern Physics” as religion. Similarly Dostoievsky with “Miracle, Mystery and Authority”, which is Modern Physics. Instead, you fudged the issue by introducing confidentiality, or secrecy, and getting Anonymous to deliver drivel on “Catt Question”. Note that Dunkley headed every letter to me “Private and Confidential” and I always replied “Not private and confidential”. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x162.pdf . One aspect of the behaviour of those administrating the freezing of science is to introduce confidentiality.

 

I presume you will refuse to offer your idea as to why “I have done my best to get him to reply. Nothing sinister about it. He has moved away from the topic. I will not push him further.” Do I have to tell you? That would be much less useful when the record is analysed in 2040. They will need your analysis of the behaviour of your “Anonymous”.

 

Also of course you fail to comment on “The Catt Question”, and yet you lecture on electromagnetic theory. Your expert friend “Anonymous” delivered drivel on it, see http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2bg.pdf . It was inevitable that he deliver drivel. Forrest Bishop says that since classical electromagnetism is irrational, defence of it is necessarily irrational. There is no possible rational answer within the paradigm of classical electromagnetism to “The Catt Question”. You, not I, should be saying that the reason why your “Anonymous” failed to comment on “The Second Catt Question” was, again, that there is no possible answer. That applies to all four items in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x395.htm .

 

Since it took me untold decades to discover the fatal flaws in classical theory, and I am not unintelligent, it is not surprising that no one else did so. Classical theory is remarkably plausible. My lengthy, sophisticated 1967 paper http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm is within the framework of classical theory, and I knew no better. 

 

Ivor Catt

 

 

 

 

From: John Roche

Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:34 PM

To: Ivor Catt

Subject: RE: lies

 

Dear Ivor,

that is rather strong, indeed it is out of character for him, or from me or from you, Ivor...

 

I have done my best to get him to reply. Nothing sinister about it. He has moved away from the topic. I will not push him further.

 

John


From: Ivor Catt [icatt@btinternet.com]
Sent: 09 September 2013 21:41
To: John Roche
Cc: bdj10@cam.ac.uk; forrestb@ix.netcom.com; sam gray
Subject: lies

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x33r.htm

 

 

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

 

Dear Dr.Roche,

It is now nine months that you have shielded your anonymous friend, described by you as an expert in electromagnetic theory, on the false grounds that he does not communicate because he is ill. This is strange behaviour of someone who was devoted to the truth in the case of Opus Dei.

Your statement in March, That is the only reason. , was obviously false.

Ivor Catt. 9 September 2013

 

March 2013.

Do you not care about lack of progress in electromagnetic theory? Why do you shield a decadent Science Establishment? As a scientist, where should be your first loyalty?

Ivor Catt

 

From: John Roche

Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 12:04 PM

To: Ivor Catt ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com

Cc: sam gray ; bdj10@cam.ac.uk

Subject: RE: anonymous

Dear Ivor,

my 'anoymous friend' is not very well at the moment, hence his delay in replying to you. That is the only reason.

Best wishes,

John

 

 

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

 

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 11:07 AM

To: John Roche ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com

Cc: sam gray ; bdj10@cam.ac.uk ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com

Subject: anonymous

Dear Dr. Roche,

http://www.marco-learningsystems.com/pages/roche/roche.htm

As someone who was in hospital for eight months, three in intensive care, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9991.htm , I have every sympathy for your friend’s extending illness. If you tell me the location, I would very much like to bring him some grapes in hospital. After his excellent snow job on http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2bg.pdf “The Catt Question”, I very much look forward to his promised reply to “The Second Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf .

I greatly admire the way you went after “Opus Dei”, http://www.odan.org/tw_inner_world_of_opus_dei.htm , showing great courage. This contrasts very much with your mysterious behaviour over the new electromagnetic theory. You have said you think my grasp of the subject is excellent, yet you studiously fail to make the most of a very rare case when an accredited (of course anonymous) expert puts his head above the parapet. Do you not care about lack of progress in electromagnetic theory? Why do you shield a decadent Science Establishment? As a scientist, where should be your first loyalty?

Ivor Catt

From: John Roche

Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 12:04 PM

To: Ivor Catt ; forrestb@ix.netcom.com

Cc: sam gray ; bdj10@cam.ac.uk

Subject: RE: anonymous

Dear Ivor,

my 'anoymous friend' is not very well at the moment, hence his delay in replying to you. That is the only reason.

Best wishes,

John


From: Ivor Catt [icatt@btinternet.com]
Sent: 01 March 2013 11:35
To: forrestb@ix.netcom.com
Cc: John Roche; sam gray; bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Subject: anonymous

Before Christmas “Anonymous Clarendon” said he had a response in mind for “The Second Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf , and would write it after Christmas. I predicted that he would not, and asked you to give an analysis of his response to the first “Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2bg.pdf

It is now two months with no response from “Anonymous Clarendon”.

I do feel your analysis of his six pages http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2bg.pdf would be much better than mine. No doubt Nobel Prize Winner Brian Josephson bdj10@cam.ac.uk ; will not make any comment on the six pages. [No comment so far. 27 march 2912.]  He has in the past written extensively on “The Catt Question”.

(Dr. John Roche said “Anonymous Clarendon” was a good friend, and an expert in electromagnetic theory. Speaking to Sam Gray, the general refusal by all accredited experts in em to make any comment on any fundamental questions about classical theory is a major part of the current syndrome, or crisis. It shows us that we do not in fact have any “Classical Electrodynamics”, since it is unspecified when it comes to detail. The classical theory does not exist.)

 

This is obviously a very serious illness. More than three months now.              Ivor Catt. 27 March 2012

 

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

 

 

From: John Roche

Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 3:21 PM

To: Ivor Catt ; dswalton@plus44.net ; Chris Spargo (PGR)

Cc: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

Subject: RE: searle box

 

I am sorry, Ivor, for your illness.  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9991.htm . I have gone to hospital once a month for seven years, and they put me to sleep and try a new cure.

At our age, I am afraid, it is par for the course. But you’re nowhere near my 78.

I still do not understand the physical interpretation of TEM in any depth. I know the formalism, of course.
What is the formalism?

For example, what is the physical relationship between the surface charges and the electric field at each turning point? What is a turning point? Is the field caused by the accompanying charge, or is it a correlation derived from earlier charges?
The same problem applies to the currents and magnetic field.
You seem to refer to Theory H and Theory C. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/63lem2.htm

John

 

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 4:07 PM

To: John Roche ;; Chris Spargo (PGR)

Cc: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

Subject: Re: searle box

 

For example, what is the physical relationship between the surface charges and the electric field at each turning point? Is the field caused by the accompanying charge, or is it a correlation derived from earlier charges? ” – John Roche.

I very much look forward to your reply to my questions, sent in another email.

In the above quote, you are close to “The Catt Question”. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm

It appears that you have two choices.

1. Understand the fatal flaw in “Classical Electromagnetism”.

2. You know that there is no fatal flaw in “Classical Electromagnetism”. It has been unchallenged to 150 years. It must be your inadequacy, rather than the inadequacy of the theory, that is creating the problem.

 

The only electromagnetic waves mentioned are sinusoidal. Digital computers do not come into “Classical Electromagnetism” as per your friend Jackson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism

There is no TEM “Wave” guided by two conductors in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_waves .

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_wave

A transverse wave is a moving wave that consists of oscillations occurring perpendicular (or right angled) to the direction of energy transfer.

The non-osciallating TEM step, or pulse, is excluded from the definition.

 

Ivor Catt

 

 

From: John Roche

Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 3:21 PM

To: Ivor Catt ; ; Chris Spargo (PGR)

Cc:

Subject: RE: searle box

 

I am sorry, Ivor, for your illness.
At our age, I am afraid, it is par for the course.

I still do not understand the physical interpretation of TEM in any depth. I know the formalism, of course.
For example, what is the physical relationship between the surface charges and the electric field at each turning point? Is the field caused by the accompanying charge, or is it a correlation derived from earlier charges?
The same problem applies to the currents and magnetic field.

John


From: Ivor Catt [icatt@btinternet.com]
Sent: 23 August 2014 14:23
To: dswalton@plus44.net; Chris Spargo (PGR)
Cc: dswalton@plus44.net; John Roche; bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Subject: searle box

I was operated on yesterday, so I am not in good shape. But I wanted to get some material to you quickly.

The study of Josephs goes beyond Josephs, to a more general investigation of the role of maths in electromagnetism, and of the “Cargo Cult”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

 

We get to the bottom of Josephs when he writes at length about Catt’s work, which I have not sent to you. He joins together superficially linked ideas, but because it relates partly to my work, I know that it is phoney. This Josephs problem is not exactly the same as the problem when mathematics ousts the physics of a subject, for instance electromagnetic theory, but it is associated. It is thought that fancy mathematical manipulation advances electromagnetic theory, whereas in fact it obscures it. As a result, supposed “experts” cannot grasp The Catt Question http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm and The Second Catt Question  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf . Towards the end we see that Nobel Prize Winner Josephson (in a field not far distant from em) does not have a physical grasp of electromagnetic theory. Once, in an email, Oxford Univ. lecturer Dr. John Roche actually said he did not have a grasp of the TEM Wave. Yet he could cross swords with Jackson, the bible of em theory in the US. Jackson does some spurious mathematical manipulation. http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/EMTV1/EMTvol1p40-41.jpg ; http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/EMTV1/EMTvol1p42-43.jpg ; http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/EMTV1/EMTvol1p44-45.jpg .

 

I am sure they think they are discussing electromagnetic theory, but they are not.

 

Ivor Catt

 

From: David Walton

Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 11:09 AM

To: Chris Spargo (PGR) ; Ivor Catt

Cc: Subject: Re: searle box

 

Ivor

I agree with Chris, we are all in your debt for the many years of tenacious effort.

Kind regards ........... Dave

On 23/08/2014 10:24, Chris Spargo (PGR) wrote:

 

Ivor,

 

I am excited to see these documents. I am glad you had the inclination to seek out and preserve them. The community must thank you for this, as I do.

 

We could write another book about Heaviside and what documents remain.

 

This would then preserve the documents further.

 

Regards

 

Chris

 

 

 

Sent from Samsung mobile


Ivor Catt mailto:icatt@btinternet.com wrote:

 

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

 

 

 

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:07 AM

To: Forrest Bishop ; John Roche

Cc: dswalton@plus44.net ; c.m.spargo@newcastle.ac.uk

Subject: Re: searle box

 

Forrest,

What you are producing is brilliant, but it is hard for me. It was not easy for me to determine that your “ The TEM Waveguide”, below, was from your http://www.worldsci.org/pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf . You here show that you are well ahead of me in your archaelogical research into “classical electromagnetism”. I did not realise that the waveguide was an intermediate stage. See your; “8. The TEM Waveguide , below. I have not got involved in waveguides. Also, below, you missed out your extremely important quote;

 

“8. The TEM Waveguide

“It is not enough for a theory not to affirm false relations; it must not conceal true relations.” —Henry Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis”

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j197.pdf

 

This leads me into my recent (yesterday) development of the theme of Cargo Cults. In our case the High Priests of mathematics think their cult is about electromagnetic theory, which it is not.

 

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2808.htm   The lateral arabesque

If at any moment the professors administering a discipline happen to be weak in one branch of it [the physics], they will tend to not examine their students in it, and so will tend to select out those up and coming students who have that sub-discipline as their strength. Positive feedback down the generations of students will further the retreat from that particular sub-discipline.

 

John Roche thinks he is not expert, and his friend at the Clarendon is expert. His anonymous friend wrote six pages of drivel http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2bg.pdf , thinking it supported an irrational theory, but in contrast John Roche shows that he has difficulties with a theory (classical electromagnetism) , assuming it is rational. He does not realise that his ability to see difficulties makes him more expert than Anonymous, who cannot see the glaring difficulties. (We always need to bear in mind that the irrational “Classical Electromagnetism” is remarkably plausible. It took me decades to see the flaws. I was aided by very advanced equipment, not available to professors and text book writers. On another point, John Roche crossed swords with Jackson. Jackson, in his bible, discusses the TE mode and the TM mode. He then moves to what he calls a “degenerate case” the TEM mode. Jackson does not know that TE and TM are made up of a combination of TEM modes. TEM is not “degenerate”. It is fundamental.)

 

John Roche tries to get to the bottom of electromagnetic theory by analysing the microwave. In the microwave, many TEM waves are travelling in all directions. It is a mess. In contrast, “The Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm is about the simplest case, a single TEM step. Cattq is obviously the way the subject should be studied, not by studying a mess of all sorts of waves – the microwave.

 

I am reminded of the problem of two torches, one on the west wall shining at the east wall. The other is on the north wall shining at the south wall. In the middle, the two beams pass through each other. John Roche is buried in the mess in the middle, trying to get to the bottom of a beam of light. Instead, he should switch off one of the torches and study what remains.

 

Confessing that you fail to understand something which is irrational does not mean you are not expert. Someone who fails to discern problems is not the expert. All surviving professors and text book writers are in the latter category, because anyone who admits to seeing, or reading about, problems is excluded from the tribe. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/th26hcat.htm

 

A predecessor of JR, Simplicio. did not make a fool of himself. He served a noble cause, the advance of science.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often caught in his own errors and sometimes came across as a fool. Indeed, although Galileo states in the preface of his book that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton".[63] This portrayal of Simplicio made Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems appear as an advocacy book: an attack on Aristotelian geocentrism and defence of the Copernican theory. Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio.

 

“Modern Physics” is Religion, not Science. The situation is very similar indeed to that of Galileo v “the Church”. Someone who found difficulties with Geocentrism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentrism , like John Roche, was not betraying lack of expertise. Quite the reverse.

 

[A predecessor of John Roche asked an expert on Oxidation to help him to understand phlogiston, which he (JR) had trouble with. The earlier JR thought his difficulty with phlogiston meant he was not expert. On the other hand, the oxidation man could help JR much over phlogiston, which he was no longer interested in, and had not studied in detail.]

 

Cargo Cults.

I wish we could see the TV programme on Cargo Cults shown a few decades ago. The Cargo Cult occurred more than once among primitive tribes.

Wikipedia on Cargo Cults is not good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult . It only touches on the key issue here;

Cult behaviors usually involved mimicking the day-to-day activities and dress styles of US soldiers, such as performing parade ground drills with wooden or salvaged rifles.[14] The islanders carved headphones from wood and wore them while sitting in fabricated control towers. They waved the landing signals while standing on the runways. They lit signal fires and torches to light up runways and lighthouses.[citation needed]

In a form of sympathetic magic, many built life-size replicas of aeroplanes out of straw and cut new military-style landing strips out of the jungle, hoping to attract more aeroplanes. The cult members thought that the foreigners had some special connection to the deities and ancestors of the natives, who were the only beings powerful enough to produce such riches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science

 

The maths pushers are like the primitive tribes, and say things which sound very like real electromagnetic theory. The way to break through the nonsense is to ask them fundamental questions about their religion, but 100% of them refuse to reply. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x344.htm . Similarly, the Cargo Cultists could be asked fundamental questions about the engineering of real aircraft and real runways, where the real goodies they wanted came down from the sky. Of course, the electromagnetic theory cultists do see benefits, and think the goodies – computers, mobiles, televisions, are the result of their ceremonies (mathematics). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations . I pressed the late Louis Essen FRS whether he actually used Maxwell’s Equations. In the end he admitted he got a mathematician to brew up his maths. When I told the late Professor Fred Heath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memex_Technology_Limited that I did not understand his article on Chain Codes, http://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/pi-c.1961.0007?crawler=true , he replied that he didn’t either. I said; “But you wrote it.” He replied; “I got a mathematician to brew up the maths so that it could be published.”

 

However, the Cargo Cult in electromagnetism does not exactly map onto maths pushers. The cultists also refuse to comment (even by shrouding it in maths) on the two distinct models for the TEM Wave. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x267.pdf

 

What John Roche is doing, and can do, for us is extremely valuable. The role of Simplicio is extremely valuable.

 

Ivor Catt

 

From: Forrest Bishop

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 12:37 AM

To: Ivor Catt ; John Roche

Cc: dswalton@plus44.net ; c.m.spargo@newcastle.ac.uk

Subject: Re: searle box

 


He asked for one sentence; he got one sentence, albeit a bit clumsy. Maybe it should be two, or ten, or maybe a book-length treatise.

The cited paper is only few pages, with some simple algebra and a few stick figures, quite sufficient to refute the mainstream picture.

Excerpt:

8. The TEM Waveguide

"Between waves on an electric-circuit/transmission-line and
waves in free space lies an intermediate case of partly confined
waves in the waveguide. There are at least two distinct schools
of thought on how electromagnetic energy propagates in a metal
tube, and in that distinction we find a very clear case of how
mathematics can trick and obscure just as easily as enlighten.

"These [mainstream, Maxwellian] authors go on to imply that
a) the presence of a metal tube nearby can slow an electromagnetic wave down to considerably less than c,
b) the amount of slowing depends on the size and shape of the metal tube,
c) parts of the electric and magnetic fields can extend in the propagation direction,
d) these new kinds of TE, TM electromagnetic waves can somehow turn into regular TEM waves when they reach the open end of the tube, and
e) the solutions to the wave equation(s) cover all possible modes of propagation...


"The TEM Waveguide is a kind of crossover case from the
Contrapuntal Catt Capacitor to free-space wave propagation. It
has features of both. The TE, TM modes appearing to move at
much less than c— depending on the shape of the metal tube—
are quite like the illusory static fields of the Catt Capacitor,
allegedly moving at zero speed..."

If anyone bothers to read the rest of it, which I doubt, they'll see that the basic idea is very old, dating back at least to the 1930's.
It's yet another case of suppression in the history of alleged science.

Forrest



On 8/24/2014 3:47 PM, Ivor Catt wrote:

Forrest,

I think John Roche is worth more than the single sentence. You will probably say it is all in your article, which you cite. But that is very long.

I suppose the thing to say may be, that in the case of Cattq http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm electric charge is not fit for purpose, because it has to travel at the speed of light, as Pepper says. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm . charge supplied from outside the system would have to travel at light velocity as well, which is clearly impossible.

I expect, and hope, that John Roche knows that Pepper’s contribution, of charge rising to the surface of the conductor is absurd, contravening Gauss’s Law. Charge moving about inside a conductor will not enable it to terminate more or less electric field. Thus electric charge, and therefore electric current, are not fit for purpose.

The same happened with Phlogiston and Caloric.  They went when scientific techniques became more sophisticated and accurate. Maxwell and Faraday did not have the equipment I had at Motorola Phoenix 80 years later. Had we ignored the results of bettier weighing machines and so on, and stayed with the Ancients, we would still have caloric and phlogiston. We should not ignore what we see when a pulse generator delivers a 5nsec pulse with 150psec rise time, which is what the pulse generator I bought in 1964 did. See the 150psec pulse in Figure 9.2 in http://www.ivorcatt.org/digihwdesignp57.htm .

Of course, Whig History says there will be no further major advances in science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history . “It has been argued that the historiography of science is "riddled with Whiggish history."[

I think John Roche teaches History of Science.

Ivor

 

From: Forrest Bishop

Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 10:48 PM

To: Ivor Catt ; John Roche

Cc: dswalton@plus44.net ; c.m.spargo@newcastle.ac.uk

Subject: Re: searle box

 


Dear John,

"When teaching this years ago I wondered about the following.

So a microwave is sent into a waveguide and then it 'takes'.

The pattern of surface charges and currents, and the pattern of electric and magnetic field lines, can run down the waveguide with a phase velocity greater than that of light, as I remember. (http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/waveguide.htm).
 
But the moving electric fields end in charges on the inner surface of guide.

(a) Clearly the introduced microwave induces  surface charges (and currents).  Outside charges and currents neutralize the fields within the metal.
(b) All of Maxwell's equations apply
(c) Are the inner surface charges responsible for the electric field lines? This is a problem for me.
(d) The electric field lines cannot be Coulomb (electrostatic)  fields because a microwave does not contain Coulomb (electrostatic) fields - I suppose?
(e) so the electric field produced by the charge must be a radiation field ???.
(f) But the electric field lines in the waveguide cannot be caused by the end charges because it is moving at a superluminal phase velocity. There is no time for the charge to produce the accompanying electric field!
(g) and yet, and yet, a free charge must always generate a Coulomb field!
(g) So what on earth does the end charges actually do in the waveguide?

??@~!!=@@

John
ps. Perhaps you can solve my conundrum [in] a single expert sentence!"- JR

A single expert sentence:

The modes in a waveguide, along with the superluminal phase velocity, are illusions, like "moving Moire patterns", created by the electromagnetic fields of TEM waves- devoid of electric charge or currents- bouncing back and forth at an angle to the wall as they travel along at c, while grossly violating Heaviside's-Maxwell's childish equations at all points on the interior walls, cf
http://www.worldsci.org/pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf .

Forrest

--Forrest Bishop

Bishop Cubes (R)
www.bishopcubes.com
============
Institute of Atomic-Scale Engineering
www.iase.cc
============
Electrodynamics of Theory C
www.forrestbishop.4t.com
============




On 8/24/2014 2:05 PM, Ivor Catt wrote:

I do hope Forrest and also Dave Walton make comments.

 

Dear Dr. John Roche,

Thank God you replied again. This is very important indeed for me. Your importance is very big because you lecture on em theory at Linacre College, part of Oxford University. Nobody else in the world with your relevant status will put anything in writing on http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x37p.htm unless instructed to do so. When they do so, they limit to the sine wave, which does not occur in digital computers. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm

First thing to say. I did not know what a TE10 was. I did a Google search for it.

At that point we have to separate two subjects.

1. Waveguides. Only a sine wave can travel down a waveguide, which has only one conductor. Forrest Bishop has things to say about waveguides, how the standard theory is wrong. However, that has nothing to do with my 50 years of work, which never touched on a waveguide. Cattq http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm has nothing to do with waveguides.  Forrest would better comment on what you write about them. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22tem+wave%22&newwindow=1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=k0v6U-LPMYGVau3DgrgJ&ved=0CCIQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=620 . “But I am sure it applies to some extent to the Catt problem.” – JR. Yes, but clear away the clutter. If classical theory fails at one point, 2, then it fails at every point. You have to decide whether you want to clarify your confusion about waveguides, or understand a historical paradigm shift, the like of which has not occurred for 200 years since Phlogiston and Caloric. Do you want to clarify your understanding of the waveguide, or address “the last of the mediaeval fluids”? Or perhaps you are willing to separate the two issues.

2. I am not sure what to call them. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/17136.htm ; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/20136.htm . Transmission lines? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_line . Unfortunately this Wikipedia entry (and all text books) exclude the TEM step, or pulse. (I have no experience of sinusoidal TEM Waves, which do not occur in computers.) http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm . Good representations of the step, or pulse, are figures 4 and 5 of  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf , or  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/1_2.htm .

 

So long as signals were sent down waveguides, and even when only sine waves were sent down two conductor transmission lines, or coaxial cable (which did make classical theory more vulnerable), classical theory could survive. (No text book or Wikpedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_line or www entry except mine https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22tem+wave%22&newwindow=1&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=k0v6U-LPMYGVau3DgrgJ&ved=0CCIQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=620 has a pulse, or step, going down a transmission line. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm )  The blatant flaws would surely show up in waveguides, and they are perhaps what are troubling you. But the situation is very confused in the case of waveguides, or even of sine waves sent down coax. In 1880 Heaviside, sending Morse pulses down coaxial cable, went some way towards developing the very simple analysis of a TEM step guided by two conductors, which is the situation in digital computers. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm . Then Marconi’s glamorous sinusoidal achievement buried Heaviside’s work. which showed its ugly head after 60 years, with the high speed digital computer. Academia held the line against Heaviside, or later against any insights gained from high speed logic. None of the content of my six books, on the www, or my articles, including those peer reviewed, has been included in any university course or text book. The academic theory is frozen at 1950. It ignores 99% of transmission lines in the world, like the USB cable, which have voltage steps, or pulses, travelling down them. (Actually TEM steps or pulses.)

 

You are in the present situation by accident, having concerns about waveguides 1. If only you could move to the transmission line  2 , for instance in a coaxial cable, the flaws in classical theory should be obvious. However, please keep to the simple case  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm , of a single TEM step.

 

I trust you agree that the statement; This is the problem if you work with simplified physics rather than follow the maths. by Nobel Prize Winner Brian Josephson is totally anti-scientific. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x23p.htm

 

Congratulations on your two recent emails. They will prove extremely valuable.

 

Ivor Catt

 

 

From: John Roche

Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 8:44 PM

To: Ivor Catt

Subject: RE: searle box

 

Dear Ivor,
My problem is related to a simple rectangular waveguide, say TE10. But I am sure it applies to some extent to the Catt problem.
This is your field of expertise and certainly not mine, so be gentle.

When teaching this years ago I wondered about the following.

So a microwave is sent into a waveguide and then it 'takes'.

The pattern of surface charges and currents, and the pattern of electric and magnetic field lines, can run down the waveguide with a phase velocity greater than that of light, as I remember. (http://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/waveguide.htm).
 
But the moving electric fields end in charges on the inner surface of guide.

(a) Clearly the introduced microwave induces  surface charges (and currents).  Outside charges and currents neutralize the fields within the metal.
(b) All of Maxwell's equations apply
(c) Are the inner surface charges responsible for the electric field lines? This is a problem for me.
(d) The electric field lines cannot be Coulomb (electrostatic)  fields because a microwave does not contain Coulomb (electrostatic) fields - I suppose?
(e) so the electric field produced by the charge must be a radiation field ???.
(f) But the electric field lines in the waveguide cannot be caused by the end charges because it is moving at a superluminal phase velocity. There is no time for the charge to produce the accompanying electric field!
(g) and yet, and yet, a free charge must always generate a Coulomb field!
(g) So what on earth does the end charges actually do in the waveguide?

??@~!!=@@

John
ps. Perhaps you can solve my conundrum is a single expert sentence!


From: Ivor Catt [icatt@btinternet.com]
Sent: 24 August 2014 16:07
To: John Roche; dswalton@plus44.net; Chris Spargo (PGR)
Cc: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Subject: Re: searle box

For example, what is the physical relationship between the surface charges and the electric field at each turning point? Is the field caused by the accompanying charge, or is it a correlation derived from earlier charges? ” – John Roche.

I very much look forward to your reply to my questions, sent in another email.

In the above quote, you are close to “The Catt Question”. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm

It appears that you have two choices.

1. Understand the fatal flaw in “Classical Electromagnetism”.

2. You know that there is no fatal flaw in “Classical Electromagnetism”. It has been unchallenged to 150 years. It must be your inadequacy, rather than the inadequacy of the theory, that is creating the problem.

 

The only electromagnetic waves mentioned are sinusoidal. Digital computers do not come into “Classical Electromagnetism” as per your friend Jackson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism

There is no TEM “Wave” guided by two conductors in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_waves .

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_wave

A transverse wave is a moving wave that consists of oscillations occurring perpendicular (or right angled) to the direction of energy transfer.

The non-osciallating TEM step, or pulse, is excluded from the definition.

 

Ivor Catt

 

 

From: John Roche

Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 3:21 PM

To: Ivor Catt ; dswalton@plus44.net ; Chris Spargo (PGR)

Cc: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

Subject: RE: searle box

 

I am sorry, Ivor, for your illness.
At our age, I am afraid, it is par for the course.

I still do not understand the physical interpretation of TEM in any depth. I know the formalism, of course.
For example, what is the physical relationship between the surface charges and the electric field at each turning point? Is the field caused by the accompanying charge, or is it a correlation derived from earlier charges?
The same problem applies to the currents and magnetic field.

John