Discussion
“Perhaps you may cite
the Wakefield experiment, but we would then have the problem of explaining what
exactly happens at the point of discharge, as in that something has to move
outwards in two directions from the point of discharge at exactly the moment
that the gate is opened. There is no clear picture of what exactly you have in
mind that is moving in both directions within the fully charged
capacitor.” – David Tombe
Presumably you have
not seen http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9659.jpg
At time to , the switch is closed.
Now if, as Tombe suggests, the energy was stationary until time to, then we start with a stationary
field at to, and the previous two figures should be the same at the
one at to. Also, of course, in the first
three pictures the yellow and the orange, for instance, are merely one bit of
stationary energy
Now since presumably
it is accepted that there is no instantaneous action at a distance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone , the energy to the left of point point D
does not know that the switch has closed until t10. So nothing has
changed to the left of D during the first 10nsec. So the left hand six
rectangles stay stationary, as they were at t0. To the right of
D, the energy must be the red and the black, not the red and the orange.
The energy to the right of D must be the energy that was there while the field
was stationary. It looks as though during the first 10nsec, half of the energy
between D and E slid to the right, and the other half remained stationary,
while of course the energy between D and A remained stationary.
In the stationary
field, we have to decide whether to represent the energy which exits between t0 and t10 as red or
black. Let us say it is red. Then the black energy remained stationary, but the
red suddenly, when the switch closed, went from stationary to travelling at the
speed of light to the right. Then after 10nsec
the black energy, which was stationary between E and D, suddenly goes off to
the right at the speed of light. Under Tombe, the
first block of energy to exit is red, and the second is black. Energy to the
left of D could not exit during the first 20nsec, because although it found out
that the switch had closed at t10, after 10 nsec,
any energy to the left of D would take another 10nsec to reach E and begin to
exit. Thus, none of the left hand six blocks of energy exit during the first
20nsec, so the energy which exits during the first 20nsec must be the
black and red energy which was to the right of D when the switch closed.
After 10 nsec, the message reaches D that the switch has
closed. Now the orange energy suddenly rushes off to the right, and the
grey energy remains stationary.
To recap, David Tombe is comfortable with the view that energy enters a
capacitor at the speed of light; becomes stationary; exits at the speed of
light. The results of the Wakefield experiment are oscilloscope traces, but can
be translated into the snapshots in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/9659.jpg . These
snapshots were predicted before the experiment was performed, but the results
were as predicted.
Let us consider the
red and black energy. They are stationary. During the first 10nsec, the left hand six blocks of energy remain stationary. Meanwhile, the
black and red rearrange themselves so that one is to the right of the other.
Then suddenly the black goes from stationary to travelling at the speed of
light. What motivated the left hand half of the black to suddenly rush off to
the right? This occurred 15nsec after the switch closed, so nothing of
significance was happening.
Ivor Catt 21
June 2013
Note that no one
whose career and reputation is wholly or partly based on electromagnetic theory
will make any written comment on the results of The Wakefield Experiment. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
. The only minimal comment comes from such as David Tombe,
who have little to lose. At first sight, such as he
seem merely a waste of time. However, in the absence of comment by any relevant
professional – professor or text book writer, such as Tombe
is the only input we have. It is fortunate that he caused me to go through the
process of trying to work out how a stationary electric field in a charged
capacitor could become a half size, double length pulse as stated in the
Tektronix 109 manual. http://ivorcatt.co.uk/x212.pdf . If
you read through my attempt, you will come to appreciate that there is no possibility
that any “accredited expert” will ever comment in writing on the matter. The problem that the left hand part of the energy does not know
that the switch has closed until some time later
creates and impossible hurdle for someone defending the idea that a charged
capacitor – or piece of charged coaxial cable – contains a stationary electric
field. This realisation does not depend on the Wakefield results. Such
analysis could have been made at any time during the last 50 years solely on
the basis of the Tektronix 109 manual. http://ivorcatt.co.uk/x212.pdf
. Where are they?
Ivor Catt 22 June 2013
From: Ivor
Catt <icatt@btinternet.com>
To: kc3mx <kc3mx@yahoo.com>; Glenn A. Baxter,
P.E. <glennbaxterpe@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Jun 18, 2013 5:16 pm
Subject: Re: truth
I have now succeeded in downloading the
manual. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x212.pdf
If you look at p72 (or p14?), the first
page, of the Wakefield article at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
you will see quotes from the manual. For some reason quotes
from different parts of the manual have been joined together. The first
part of the quote is towards the end of page 2-2 (not page 2). The last part of
the quote is from half way down the right hand column of page 2-3 . I don’t know at what stage of the editing these two were
joined together, and said to be on “page 2”.
The 109 is more versatile, and I left
out the complication of alternate pulses of different lengths and different
voltages, and internal and external voltage supplies which the 109 can use. In
any case, Wakefield did not use the 109, because his better, faster, new
oscilloscope made it possible to do the expt. without the 109. If you use the
internal voltage supply, then the dials are adjusted for you to get the output
you want, not the full charging voltage. However, in the case of your using
your own voltage supply, Tektronix had to warn that you don’t get the full
voltage out, only half.
I worked with the 109 for some years,
and always saw what the manual said I should see. If you look at Figure 5 of
Wakefield, you will see that the original voltage is 8v (4 squares) for a long
time. If you look at the second trace of Figure 1, you see the half size double
length pulse of 4v (2 squares) coming out.
Ivor Catt
From: Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.
Sent: Tuesday, June 18,
2013 9:49 PM
To: icatt@btinternet.com ; glennbaxterpe@aol.com ; kc3mx@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: truth
Ivor,
Can you tell what
page of the Tektronix 109 pulse generator manual that the half voltage, double
pulse length experiment is described on? Thanks.
Glenn
Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.
glennbaxterpe@aol.com
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I cannot find Harry’s
assertion that the idea of a charged capacitor having energy travelling in
opposite directions is “metaphysics”, and cannot be observed. However, below is
essentially his repeat of the same assertion.
From: HARRY RICKER
Sent: Friday, June 21,
2013 5:36 PM
All,
2. The existence of the so called non-steady electric field in a capacitor is
counter-intuitive, since it can not be directly
observed
Harry
I presume it is agreed that when a
capacitor is being charged, the energy approaches the capacitor/transmission
line/coaxial cable at the speed of ;light. http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec2.htm .
It should also be agreed that the energy then traverses the coaxial cable at
the speed of light.
The Tektronix manual for their 109
pulse generator says that when discharged, the energy exits from the cable at
the speed of light, http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec2.htm ,
and Wakefield confirms this , http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf .
The idea that half way through this
process, the energy becomes stationary, is traditional, and has not been
proven. In http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x36m.htm ,
Catt went to great pains to work out the second step, where it is alleged that
stationary energy suddenly leaps into life, and travels at the speed of
light. Two problems arose.
1 The Wakefield results http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x3216.pdf show
that the energy was not stationary.
2 Attempts to work out how the
stationary energy suddenly travels at the speed of light prove impossible http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x36m.htm .
Although the idea of a stationary
electric field in this situation is conventional, this should not lead NPA
members to give is precedence over the idea that the energy is not stationary.
Of all people, NPA members should not dismiss a non-traditional idea as
“metaphysics”. We can clearly see that if anything is “metaphysics”, it is the
idea that the energy suddenly comes to a halt (regardless of http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/4_1.htm
).
I put it to Harry Richer that the idea
of stationary energy in the middle of this process is “metaphysics” and
unproven. The idea that the energy continues throughout at the speed of light
is rational and now proven.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x36m.htm is
the reduction ad absurdum of the stationary field.
Ivor Catt
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Monday, June 24,
2013 10:00 AM
To: ....
Subject: reciprocating
capacitor
Dear Harry,
Last night I discussed the current
impasse with my friend John Foggitt.
Below, you wrote; “2. The existence of
the so called non-steady electric field in a capacitor is counter-intuitive,
since it can not be directly observed”
Your position is
generally one of irritation because I criticise you while you believe you are
doing all you can to support my work.
This morning I
started reading my 1995 book http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/em.htm ,
and found a development of the state of a charged capacitor from first
principles all of which you will agree with. The reasoning culminates with
Figures 7 and 8, where we have rationally developed from fundamentals all of
which you will agree with to “so called non-steady electric field in a
capacitor”.
[This is slightly
inaccurate. The non-steady charged capacitor does not have an electric field.
It has electromagnetic fields.]
Your repeated
assertion that the reciprocating model for a charged capacitor “is
metaphysics”, and “can not be directly observed” is
based on the reigning idea that science is about ”scientific method” – hypothesis,
experiment, results, conclusions, or some such. Malcolm Davidson has fallen
into the trap of going along with the 20th century idea that that is the sum
total of proper scientific activity.
20 years ago, using
rational monologue deriving from “facts” all of which you will agree with, I
developed the truth about a “steady charged capacitor”. There was
no experiment, merely development of scientific theory, or fact, based on
logical reasoning beginning with facts all of which you will agree with.
The clear, rational
conclusion that in this case a charged capacitor did not have a stationary
electric field should lead you to conclude that no charged capacitor has a
stationary electric field. That is, you will not go along with David Tolmbe’s recent idiotic view that some charged capacitors
have stationary field and others do not – that a capacitor remembers exactly
how it was charged.
I fear that, having
taken umbrage at my not thinking of you as a full blooded supporter of my work,
you will not respond in any way to this email, or at least not in the manner
that reason says is necessary. However, to continue.
You write that a
“non-steady .... field in a capacitor .... can not be directly observed.”
Somewhere in my books
on Forrest’s website, http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/
, I have complained that the ideas of “mistake” and also of “nonsense” have
been excised from the scientific community. I have asked for their reintroduction.
For instance, it is a “mistake” for text books to say that the field inside a
capacitor is uniform. http://www.ivorcatt.com/3613.htm .
The obvious mistake in this statement is demonstrated by rational reasoning,
not by experiment. What Malcolm Davidson did not appreciate enough recently is
that the demand for “scientific method” and for experimental results has very
much a political purpose, to block the very important role in true science of
rational thought and dialogue.
Now in my development of the true
model for a charged capacitor twenty years ago I used only rational thought and
reasoning. This was ignored, so 20 years later I came up with an experiment which
proved the same, directed at those, the majority, who have restricted science
to “scientific method”. You, Harry Ricker, concentrated on
the experiment. However, the experiment was only necessary because of
the current vogue of excluding reason and dialogue from science. Such as Harry
should not be trapped in this fashion, and should admit the value of logical
reasoning.
However, at this point we come upon a
dilemma. The reasoning leading inexorably to a “non-steady field in a
capacitor” is at the start of one of my many books on the www. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/em.htm
Harry cannot be expected to have read all my work, even that part of it which
is on the www.
In an attempt to encourage people to
finally study my massive work over 50 years, I have resorted to dropping my
work and concentrating on questions about classical theory, which those whose
reputations and salaries are based on electromagnetic theory refuse to comment
on. That was the purpose of Wakefield http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
. It should not have been necessary for a “supporter” of my work like Harry.
However, if my work is too voluminous and far reaching, so that Harry cannot be
expected to read all of it, there is a fundamental dilemma.
It is noticeable that my questions, for
in stance “The Catt Question”, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
, about classical theory are very often thought to be presentations of my
theory, which they are not. Similarly, Wakefield is not about my theory, but
about classical theory.
Ivor Catt
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Wednesday, June 19,
2013 11:40 AM
To: Forrest Bishop
Cc:
Subject: truth
It is useful that Forrest repeated the
old maxim which is Harry’s – “The truth that there
are no truths.” I should have raised this when it came to discovering that
Harry was against search after truth.
“The truth that there are no truths” is
obviously not intellectually superior to its opposite. “The truth that there
are no truths” is dogma, not free thinking.
Although I have promoted Popper, he
remains inadequate because he was not a scientist. When a scientist does his
duty, which is to search for truth, the one and only truth, he has a good grasp
of what is involved. This might relate to the scientist Polanyi when he
mentions “the tacit dimension”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge
; “With tacit knowledge, people are not often aware of the knowledge they
possess or how it can be valuable to others”.
“The truth that there
are no truths” is a shallow way of discrediting the current corrupted
mainstream in science (including Harry) on this point. The real issue goes much
deeper. It is a battle for the soul of science, and all that science stood for,
before science became professional and the existing body of knowledge had to be
protected, by such spurious ideas like “The truth that there are no truths”. If
the new theory is not true either, then why should we professors discard our
lecture notes and text books?
The idea that members
of NPA should value and encourage each other’s theories is superficially
attractive. However, this kind of idea led to the abortion of “wave-particle
duality”, a political quick fix to keep everyone on board. It covered up the
fact that anomalies in theoretical framework were unresolved. Similarly the Uncertainty Principle.
The political use of
“The truth that there are no truths” is extremely damaging and close to home.
The man in the UK government who promoted Catt invention, at serious cost to
himself in his career in government, (leading to three government funded
research projects into Catt invention in British Universities) was approached
by me and my co-authors when we could not publish our theories. As a friend of
the next to top man in the British Library, we wanted a quarter of an inch of
shelf space in the British Library so that our discoveries would survive when
we died. He responded by asking us if we believed that our theories were true.When we answered yes, he would not do anything to get
the shelf space and ensure their survival. You will see here the strength of
commitment that can be held by such as Belarmino and
Harry to “the truth that there are no truths”. It is held passionately.
Ivor Catt
@@@@@@@@@
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Thursday, June 27,
2013 12:20 PM
To: David Tombe ; Malcolm Davidson ; Glenn A. Baxter, P.E. ; kc3mx@yahoo.com ; franklinhu@yahoo.com
; cole@nevis.columbia.edu ; dgsasso@alice.it ; odomann@yahoo.com
; pnoble@vermontel.net ; the.volks@comcast.net ; david@dehilster.com ; npercival@snet.net ; almcd999@earthlink.net ; palasija@gmail.com ; don@shoestringscience.com ; gravity@extinctionshift.com ; ian.cowan@nsai.ie ; rarydin@earthlink.net ; bill.lucas001@gmail.com ; Forrest Bishop ; jarybczyk@verizon.net ; cowani@eircom.net ; baugher.3@wright.edu ; smalik@uri.edu ; hatchronald@johndeere.com
; peterkohut@seznam.cz ; thenarmis@gmail.com ; institute@k1man.com ; npa-relativity@googlegroups.com
; echoshack@gmail.com
Subject: Re: The Catt
Question
Malcolm,
Obviously you and I have an option.
Either we walk away from electromagnetic theory, or we carry on.
You have recently said you do not
believe what I think, that 30 or 40 years from now it will be obvious that
science has ground to a halt. At that point, I think, my research into
behaviour in around 2013 will be very valuable information for the inquest.
Nobody whose reputation and salary is
fully or partly based on electromagnetic theory will communicate anything as to
the detail of their theory. Thus we are left with a very small number of people
who have less to lose.
Now we find that Glenn Baxter, Harry
Ricker, David Tombe, with the best will in the world,
cannot distinguish between (1) questions about classical theory http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22j.pdf
(2) experimental results which seem to undermine classical theory http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf
and (3) attempts to communicate new theory http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x311.htm
.
I think it follows that no professor or
text book writer can make the distinction in his mind. They are much more
motivated to be unable to make the distinction than are GB, HR, DT.
It is this kind of discovery that is so
valuable, or will be valued during the inquest 30 or 40 years from now.
(However, you believe there will not be such an inquest.)
Go to http://www.ivorcatt.com/28anomp.htm
and search for “The
Conquest of Science”
. Note that there I flag up Harry
Ricker’s support of the church against Galileo as being of primary concern. “According to the
instrumentalist view, the validity or falsity of a theory has no importance.
All that matters is its usefulness as an instrument for predicting practical
results.”
Unlike you, I find this research
fascinating. I also think it is very important.
Ivor Catt