The Clarendon Guru who moved away.
Dr. Christopher Palmer. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2bg.pdf
“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 doing 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. 3.4.2021.]
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