Extracted from below; written by Josephson;
___________________ Previous letter to
Pepper. …. I’ve received a letter from one Ivor Catt raising the question http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
of what happens if a step voltage is applied to a transmission line, which
question I gather the Master passed on to you for a response. Catt’s book
reveals an interesting variety of replies. It seems to me that the correct
answer lies along the following lines: 1) After the step has passed we have a steady voltage across the lines, and there
must be corresponding charge per unit length on each line of +-CV, where C is
the capacitance of the line per unit length and V the voltage. 2) This charge
cannot be entirely explained by displacement of charge from the interior (your
explanation), since charge is conserved and such displacements would not
alter the net charge per unit length. 3) It must therefore come from the left, In fact a current V/Z, where Z is the characteristic
impedance of the line, is to be expected, and presumably a simple calculation
would show this to be exactly what is needed to create the charge left on the
line. 4) Your,
and Catt’s assertion that this cannot happen (and the official IEE
response also) because the electrons do not travel at the speed of light, is incorrect, as noted by
Neil McEwan. What actually happens is that an EM pulse travels along the line
at the speed of light and this gives a kick to the electrons locally to get
them moving at the right speed. At the edge of the step there is a very large
electric field as the voltage changes discontinuously (assuming zero
resistance; as McEwan observes; the step will spread out (and also attenuate)
if there is anmy resistance). What limits
the resulting current is not inertia (though this would limit how fast it would
rise), but back-emf. Copied by Ivor Catty on 27 July 2009. [Statement
by Ivor Catt] The rest of this letter should be somewhere in my files. I will
try to find it. Ivor Catt.]
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/71.htm
Josephson attempts to end the Catt Anomally by
asserting pepper agrees with him. Forrest bishop in 2006
receives a communication [from Pepper] that he does not.
The Anomaly, that is a disagreement on EM theory is not resolved. Josephson
remains a westerner, Pepper a southerner for the next 30 years.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Sam Gray
Sam Gray discusses Catt theory,
and reproduces some writing by Catt.
http://my.opera.com/jehovajah/blog/2013/08/27/on-a-theory-of-electromagnetism
. When it says; "In so doing he obscures the equally valid
questions:", it obscures "The Catt Question".
It would be very useful if they
were not in fact a "snow job". It is likely that no one will wade
through them.
I should mention one thing at
this point.
Dr. Arnold Lynch was a, perhaps
the, leading doyen of the IEE (now IET), the second most important relevant
institution in the world for our purpose. He thought the IEE had treated me
unfairly. He set up the "The History of Electrical
Engineering " branch of the IEE, and gave the keynote speech at the
centenary celebration of the discovery of the electron (because, as he told me,
"J J Thomson told me about it.") Both Thomson. the discoverer of
the electron and also Lynch are now dead. Lynch, sitting on my sofa, told
me the discoverer of the electron had told him about his discovery! He
explained that this was why he would be giving the keynote speech at the
centenary meeting.
Since I was always (for
decades) rejected for publication by the IEE, I decided that not a word in
our joint paper on "The Catt Question" http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm should be written by Catt. Lynch told me that
the top brass in the IEE were desperate to publish something by Catt, and if he
submitted a joint paper with Catt, and it was rejected, reasons for rejection
would be given. In the event, it was rejected, and no reasons given.
Lynch then took our article to
his friend, the Chairman of "History of Electrical Engineering", which
he had set up, and I was there when Lynch presented it at the key yearly
meeting of the group.
I am very resentful that later,
when Dr. Lynch died, there was no mention of his death in any IEE publication,
although he had an obituary in The Times and also in the New York IEEE. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5bv.htm
; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.pdf ; http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/5b1.htm
, http://www.ivorcatt.com/2812h.htm
The key error Lynch made when
writing our article was to discuss the electric current, whereas "The Catt
Question" is about the charge on the bottom conductor. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm . There has never been written comment
by any accredited expert on electromagnetic theory in the world on the
Lynch/Catt article.
Ivor Catt
29 August 2013
http://my.opera.com/jehovajah/blog/2013/08/27/on-a-theory-of-electromagnetism
http://my.opera.com/jehovajah/blog/2013/08/27/on-a-theory-of-electromagnetism-theory-c
One of the above papers said; “A new theory is born”
and hyperlinks to here; http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/images/7876w.jpg
. This is the letter my co-author wrote to me immediately he was told the new
“Theory C”.
The Lynch/Catt story above gives us interesting food
for thought. Whereas we tend to think of a “Science Establishment” which fends
of major scientific advance from the outside, we here see it fending off major
advance attempted by its own insider, of whom Dr. Arnold Lynch was obviously
one. He received the Establishment accolade of giving the key evening lecture
at the centenary celebration of the discovery of the electron by J J Thomson. All the same, he was sidelined when he persisted
in promoting Catt theory, because it involved major scientific advance. But he
was previously within the halls of the Establishment giving the keynote lecture
on a major scientific advance, the discovery of the electron! It is ironic that
Catt theory tended to undermine the Thomson discovery.
Ivor Catt 29 August 2013.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://my.opera.com/jehovajah/blog/2013/08/27/on-a-theory-of-electromagnetism
as on 29/8/2013
Re: Fractal Foundations of mathematics: Axioms notions and the set FS as a
model
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=profile;u=410;sa=showPosts
·
Archive
·
Friends
·
About
On a theory of Electromagnetism
Tuesday, August 27, 2013 9:06:51 AM
Ivor Catt seeking to advance Electromagnetc theory, was reduced to publishing the Catt Anomally.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm
The consequence was a division between some theoreticians revealing the physico chemical description of matter and the
electromagnetic wave Description. Each group of scientist pays scant attention
to the others use of a common model.
Catt poses the question: where does the charge on the bottom rail come from. In
so doing he obscures the equally valid questions: where does the transverse
Electromagnetic wave come from? Where is the Longitudinal wave in the analysis?
What precisely are voltage, resistance and current? What is a battery? What is
an electromotive force and what is a magneto motive force? And importantly,
what is electric and magnetic induction. .
A charge is what precisely and a charged rod or surface differed in what way
from a magnetised rod or surface?
Catt then turns sociological commentator, revealing the evident hypocrisy and
statecraft of power groups, even in the propaganda driven sciences.
In the course of his enquiry he receives 2 replies and further communication
attempting to unify what first was at odds.
Meantime Catt expresses his view
IEE Science,
Education and Technology IEE The history of electrical engineering 26th Weekend
Meeting 10-12 July 1998 University of East Anglia DIGEST OF PAPERS PRESENTED Organised by Professional Group D7 (History of technology)
HEE/26 LIST OF CONTENTS Introduction (Dr Colin Hempstead and Mr Johannes Hock) 1 Inventiveness and the thought processes
of the engineer: Mr Jack Bridge 2 A difficulty in
electromagnetic theory Dr Arnold Lynch and Mr Ivor
Catt 3 4 …. 12 …. …. P2/1 A DIFFICULTY IN ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY by Arnold
Lynch and Ivor Catt We seem to have two different systems of electrical theory
almost but not quite independent of each other. The difficulty has existed for
more than a hundred years but appeared unimportant until the last twenty years
or so. …. …. …. P2/2 Now we describe a problem which combines the two types of
theory and shows the difficulty mentioned in the title of this paper. It arose
about twenty years ago when fast-operating silicon chips were connected to one
another. We idealise the problem slightly. Imagine a
coaxial transmission line terminated by a matched load at the far end; and for
simplicity let it be evacuated, and of very low resistance. Apply a step
voltage to its input; a wave travels along it with the velocity of waves in
free space. So after a time a current begins to flow in the terminating load;
that is, electrons start to move through it. The problem is - where did they
come from? Not from the input, because electrons have finite mass and so they
cannot travel at the velocity of waves in free space. (Remember that we are
considering a step voltage, not an alternating one.) One of us sent the problem
to various people who might have been expected to provide an answer, and the
responses were mainly of two kinds (ref. 1): (1) that the wave causes radial
movements in the line as it passes over them, and that electrons displaced in
this way at the far end make up the current; or (2) that electrons move along
the line, with velocity less than the wave, but push other electrons on in
front of them, keeping pace with the wave. This problem was mentioned in the
Institution's Wheatstone Lecture last December. The lecturer said that
electrons in a metal travel only slowly but that they can transmit a fast
electromagnetic wave by "nudging" their neighbours
("nudging" was his word for it). Our comments on this are: each atom
in a metal contributes a few free electrons, so there are rather more electrons
than atoms and therefore they are spaced from each other by a little less than
the spacing of the atoms - say about a tenth of a nanometre.
The size of an electron is not known, but it is presumably much smaller than an
atomic nucleus, which is about a millionth is a nanometre.
That is, the electrons are spaced apart by more than 100,000 times their
diameter. So they cannot deliver a nudge without moving, and they cannot move
instantaneously because of their mass. …. …. REFERENCES 1. I. Catt, "The
Catt Anomaly" (Westfields Press, St. Albans), 1996 2. A. C. Lynch,
"Half the electron", Engineering Science and Education Journal, 6, pp
215-220 (1997) Dr. Arnold Lynch is an Honorary Research Fellow in the Dept. of
Electronic Engineering, University College, London; correspondence can be
addressed to him at 8 Heath Drive, Potters Bar, Herts, EN6 1EH
Catt remains uncommunicative on the presumed field around the ions in motion,
but then his respondents draw attention to it!
McEwan's Snow
Job 18jan00. McEwan, after four years incommunicando
(he only ever wrote once, in 1996, under instruction from is
boss, and then ignored all further communications from third parties and
instructions from his boss to write again), now does a snow job, garnished with
the 'confidential' card, and salted with grovels to Pepper FRS, a Southerner.
[McEwan should have grovelled to Pepper FRS's boss
Howie FRS, who, like McEwan, is a Westerner. I.C.1feb00] Dear Mr Catt, I am offering a reply to your recent
correspondence. I do hope you will accept that this is entirely friendly and
disinterested, and that I have honestly tried to explain the problem. I'd just
like to first make a few personal comments about myself. [About 600
'confidential' words erased by I Catt.] ......... I hope you will understand
therefore that I simply can't afford to get involved in a lot more correspondence
on this issue, but I offer below some thoughts which I hope will help.
.......... I must say that I don't think you are doing anything useful by
stirring up issues of north versus south, east etc. I will trust to your
integrity to treat my above comments, especially about my own circumstances, as
totally confidential. [See p55 of the book "The Catt Anomaly", on
this website, quoting Catt's 10sep96 letter to McEwan's boss; "I promise
that his [McEwan's] response, and my further comments on him, will appear in
future issues of this book." Should I now break my promise? These
'scientists' always play the 'confidential' card.] Now let me make a few
comments for public consumption:
********************************************************* "I previously
offered to Mr Catt a simple explanation of how the
charge is conveyed along the transmission line. I used an
uniform array of N electrons and N positive ions spaced out along a section of
line of length L. I then pointed out that if we push in one extra electron at
the left of this section, and redistribute the N + 1 electrons uniformly over
that section, there appears a net unbalanced charge of one unit which is
distributed nearly uniformly over that section, but none of the charges
involved had to move a distance greater than L/N within the time it took to
redistribute the charges. The large values of N actually involved explains why
the particle velocity really is so small. This is the gist of my explanation
which I won't repeat in detail as I assume Mr Catt
has already included it and will recap it as necessary. I still stand by this
as a basic explanation of how the charge is carried along the line. As I
explained before, I think the anomaly only appears to exist because there is a
confusion about the identity of the charges involved. The charge which actually
supports the line voltage is actually a very slight unbalance between very
large densities of positive and negative charges which are already in any given
section of line before the propagaing wave reaches them.
(Note the italics!) My description shows that a pattern of unbalanced charge
can move far more rapidly than the individual charges involved. (I could make
the obvious analogy with sound waves; after 1 second I hear the sound from a
lightning stroke 340 metres away but it is perfectly
obvious that none of the atmospheric molecules that were around the original
discharge have arrived at my ears. Putting it a bit facetiously, I don't smell
any ozone at the same time as the sound arrives and there certainly aren't any
340 m/sec winds blowing round my head. But surely the idea of particles
transmitting stress to other particles is already clear enough.) I would like
to emphasise that my description using N charges in a
line was a deliberately simplified one intended to get over the key concept
without a lot of detail. This leads me to my next point. I am prepared to take
slight issue with Prof Pepper - again in a completely friendly way I hope -
about the main component of the velocity of the charges. My recollection is
that he agreed with me that the required charges are already in the section of
line to start with, but I think he implied that the charges move laterally
outward to generate the surface charge as the wave moves over them. I would
assert that the main component of particle velocity is longitudinal. In fact it
is easy to show that the current flow must have both lateral and longitudinal
components, so I agree with Prof Pepper that there are lateral charge movements
but I do assert that the longitudinal velocity components are the larger ones.
We can go into this in a little more detail: The surface charges on the
metallic conductors exist only in a very thin surface layer. Classical theory
doesn't give any indication of the thickness of this layer. To do it properly
means solving the wave mechanical equations for the states of the electrons
near the surface. This I am not competent to do. However, this distance scale
is obviously an atomic one. Within the conductor deeper than the surface charge
layer, we will find there is no unbalanced charge density. We now have to
introduce the concept of skin depth. The current flow along the conductor
occurs within a layer near the surface whose thickness is the skin depth.
Because the skin depth varies inversely as the square root of frequency, we are
obliged to consider individual frequency components in the propagating pulse.
However the skin depth is very much greater than the surface charge layer
thickness up to very high frequencies, as (for copper) it is about 9 mm at 50
Hz and about 2 microns at 1 GHz. The implication of this is that the moving
electrons must have both transverse and longitudinal components of velocity.
They have to arrive at the surface of the metal, yet flow within a much thicker
region. To arrive at the surface, they must, as Prof Pepper says, move
sideways. However, if they only moved sideways, there would still not be any
net charge imbalance in any small section of line. So here I am saying that
Prof Pepper's description is incomplete, there have to be longitudinal motions
as well. You can imagine the lines of the current flow field (at a single
frequency) as like semi-loops in which one end of the loop starts on a patch of
positive surface charge, bends round very sharply within the skin depth, then
goes longitudinally along and terminates on a negative surface charge patch. I emphasise again, however, that no individual charge
originally at one end of the loop has to arrive at the other end; only small
individual velocities are involved. (This can be put a bit more formally using
some mathematics. Because there can be no unbalanced charge density within the
conductor, the current flow field must have zero divergence, i.e. if we use an
x - axis along the cable axis and a y - axis normal to the conductor surface,
then we must have dUsubx)/dx + dUsuby/dy = 0. Here Usubx and Usuby are the x and y components of the current density
flow vector. Now the first term is certainly non - zero because the velocity
does exist on the left of the wave front and not on the right of it. This
implies that Usuby can't be zero. I include this only
as shorthand for the benefit of those who are familiar with this kind of maths, but it isn't essential.) For the high frequency
components within the propagating pulse, the ratio of the longitudinal velocity
components to the transverse ones will be the approximate ratio of the
wavelength of the guided wave to the skin depth. For components at sufficiently
low frequencies where the skin depth becomes larger than the conductor
transverse dimensions , the corresponding ratio will
be of the order of the ratio of the wavelength of the wave to the transverse
dimension of the appropriate conductor. I believe that in all virtually all
practical cases this ratio is very much greater than unity. I am sure Prof
Pepper will not be in the least offended by my raising this contention, and
anyway I am quite prepared to be shot down about it if I myself am wrong.
Within the approximations of the classical equations, the problem of the step
wave propagating along a line made of conductors of finite conductivity can in
principle be solved numerically using the finite-difference time domain method.
I am not certain that the software that is actually around can cope well with
the different length scales of the skin depth and the inter-conductor spacings.
I don't have time to look into this, but if anyone else would like to have a go
(or maybe even has done it already and I am not aware of it) I believe they
will be able to demonstrate a current flow field similar to what I described: I
think it will show almost purely longitudinal velocity components, uniformly
distributed across the conductors, a long way behind the wave front, and
transverse components that increase as you approach the propagating wave front.
I have noted Mr Catt's comments where he says that
one explanation of he wave
transmission (and I believe it is correct) is that the electrons transmit the
wave by each one "nudging" the next. [Nothing to do with Catt. Catt's
co- author Dr. Lynch said this idea was presented by the lecturer at the IEE
1997 Wheatstone Lecture.] The point he [Lynch] raises here is that the spacing
between the electrons is very much greater than the radii of the particles. I
hope I am correct in interpreting his problem as: "how do they nudge each
other if they are a long way from touching?" I have to say that I believe
this is a total red herring. The particles don't have to touch each other to
transmit the force; if you push one electron closer to another, the second one
gets a nudge because the electrostatic repulsion acting on it increases. The
increase, however, is not felt instantaneously by the second, but only after
the time taken for light to travel from one to the other. (At this point we could
now get into several very interesting further questions, but they are really
sidelines as far as the resolution of the Catt anomaly is concerned. One is the
question of what is meant by the radius of the electron. One possible
definition is the radius at which the electrostatic field ceases to obey the
inverse square law. There is also a classical definition based on the
electromagnetic scattering cross section, and a quantum radius which I don't
understand. I don't believe these quantities are connected, but I would be most
interested in the comments of expert physicists. Another fundamental problem is
what keeps particles together under their internal repulsion. This certainly
isn't dealt with by Maxwell's equations, as they stand, but neither is it a problem
for explaining the wave transmission problem. Again I simply don't know what
the present state of knowledge is about these points, and would be interested
to hear about recent developments from experts who are up to date. At extremely
high frequencies, there are indeed effects due to the finite rate of
acceleration of electrons in conductors under applied force. I believe the
characteristic frequency at which this becomes important is the plasma
frequency of the metal, normally somewhere in the X-ray region, I think.
Finally a still higher level of description is to treat the electron movement
using quantum mechanics.) To show there is a problem with an existing physical
theory, you either have to show that is logically self-inconsistent or that is
fails to agree with experimental observations. My conclusion is that, although Mr Catt's problem does provide many interesting exercises
in applying the available theories, it still doesn't manage to meet my criteria
for showing that there is a problem with them."
**************************************************** (end of "public"
material) To conclude, I hope you will think carefully about my comments and
accept them as my best and most honest attempt to explain the issue, within the
limits of my knowledge. [Approx. 200 more 'confidential' words erased by Ivor
Catt] Very best wishes, Neil McEwan [18jan00] p66 Co-author Dr. A. Lynch to
Ivor Catt, 30jan00 Dear Ivor, My physics dates back to the 1940's, since when I
have usually called myself an electrical engineer. But I think the spacing of
atoms in a solid or liquid is about 0.3nm, and the size of an atomic nucleus is
less by a factor of thousands, so that energetic particles are able to pass
through a thin film of solid with few collisions. The size and shape of an
electron are, I believe, unknown. McEwan discusses the "nudging"
sensibly, but he appears to assume that the electron is spherical - otherwise
why "the" radius? .... .... .... .... There are, however, no doubts
about J.J.'s discovery [which J.J. described to young Arnold Lynch, now aged
83, - I.C.]: electric charge is associated with inertia, and this is what
matters for your Anomaly. Yours sincerely, Arnold Lynch Comment by Ivor Catt,
1feb00. Lynch first pointed out in our joint IEE paper that electrons are too
far apart to nudge each other. Here, he points out that they must be far apart,
not only in diameter, but also in their power to influence events, with large
unaffected spaces between, "so that energetic particles are able to pass
through a thin film of solid with few collisions." He is moving towards
the suggestion that if electrons nudged each other, then X-ray photography
would not work. - I.C. 1feb00. "Encyclopaedia
Britannica 1910, vol 9, p237 "Electron .... The size of the electron is to
that of an atom roughly in the ratio of a pin's head to the dome of St. Paul's
cathedral. .... it has been suggested that its inertia is wholly electrical
...." The electron has long arms, and nudges, not with its shoulders, but
with its finger tips. – I Catt 2002 p67 From Sir Andrew Huxley, OM, FRS [Nobel
prizewinner, ex Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.] 14may00 Dear Mr. Catt, I
much enjoyed our conversation at dessert in Trinity a week ago. Thank you for
your letter. Before I received it, I got your book [The Catt Anomaly] out of
the library at Trinity. My reactions to the main point, as stated on your p. 3,
are as follows.
The difficulty of details regarding the atomic model are thus revealed. The
transmission at the speed of light is promulgated at the speed of light, to
allow a charge to be in place just in time!. But a
supposed inertia throws a spanner in the works.
Josephson enters the fray with his solution
Early Josephson
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS From: Prof. B.D. Josephson,
F.R.S. Telephone: 01223-337260/337254/337200 Fax: 01223-337356 Telex: 81240
CAMSPL G Email: bdj10@cam.ac.uk Postal address: Cavendish Laboratory, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HE, England. Mar 11, 1997.
Dear Mr. Catt, Thank you for your letter and your book. I found the contents
very interesting, but am afraid I have to disagree with you with regard to your
assertion; “Where does this new charge come from? …. Not from somewhere to the
left, as such charge would have to travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.”
This assertion may be ‘obvious to the untutored mind’, is in fact incorrect.
This is argued by McEwan, but it may be easier to follow the argument if we
move from the arena of electrons in a metal to the more visualisable
one of boats on the Cam. Imagine we have a series of stationary boats, with
uniform spacing d. At time t0 a pistol is fired, and each crew when it hears
the pistol starts moving with velocity v (we assume for simplicity,
unphysically, that the boats accelerate instantaneously to this velocity, the
outcome is the same whether we assume this or not). Each crew hears the pistol
going a time d/c earlier than do the crew of the boat next in front, c being
the velocity of sound, and theyy move forward a
distance dv/c in this time. The spacing of the boats thus changes from d to d –
v/c as the sound pulse passes. An observer in an (aero)plane overhead would see
a density discontinuity (smoothed out in the real case where the boats take
time to get going), with the front moving with velocity c, since it is driven
by the sound of the starting pistol. If we change sound wave (pulse) to
electromagnetic pulse, and boats to electrons, we get the situation of your
‘anomaly’. It is no more necessary for the electrons to travel at the speed of
light for the front to travel at the speed of light than it is for the boats to
travel at the speed of sound for the front to travel at that speed: what is
necessary is for there be a way for the guiding information to travel rapidly.
I contacted Prof. Pepper about this and enclose the email I sent him since it
includes more detailed analysis. He told me that he had been under the
impression that you were talking about a waveguide not a transmission line, and
had addressed his comments to that situation (he makes this impression as to
what the issue is quite clear in the letter fropm him
that you reproduce , hence I think your comments on
this letter are rather aimed at the wrong target). In any event, the upshot
after discussion with Pepper seems to be that all three ‘experts’ at the
Cavendish are currently in agreement (here I am guessing what Howie said, since
you do not give details). I am afraid that from my analysis there is no Catt
anomaly (disagreement with Maxwell’s equations), but only an instructive Catt
paradox (disagreement with what intuition tells one). Nevertheless I find your
‘experiment’ of sending the same question to large numbers of ‘experts’ quite
interesting, as the reactions parallel those that I get when I bring up
subjects such as the paranormal and homeopathy with people – when orthodoxy is
under threat, rightly or wrongly it makes no difference, hasty gut reactions
tend to take the place of science. Yours sincerely Brian Josephson P.S. You may
if you feel it necessary circulate this, and also the attached letter to
Pepper, but I would appreciate your letting me know your intentions if you do
plan to do this. ___________________ Previous leter
to Pepper. …. I’ve received a letter from one Ivor Catt raising the question of
what happens if a step voltage is applied to a transmission line, which
question I gather the Master passed on to you for a response. Catt’s book
reveals an interesting variety of replies. It seems to me that the correct
answer lies along the following lines: 1) After the step has passed
we have a steady voltage across the lines, and there must be corresponding
charge per unit length on each line of +-CV, where C is the capacitance of the
line per unit length and V the voltage. 2) This charge cannot be entirely
explained by displacement of charge from the interior (your explanation), since
charge is conserved and such displacements would not alter the net charge per
unit length. 3) It must therefore come from the left, In fact a current V/Z,
where Z is the characteristic impedance of the line, is to be expected, and
presumably a simple calculation would show this to be exactly what is needed to
create the charge left on the line. 4) Your, and Catt’s assertion that this
cannot happen (and the official IEE response also) because the electrons do not
travel at the speed of light, is incorrect, as noted by Neil McEwan. What
actually happens is that an EM pulse travels along the line at the speed of
light and this gives a kick to the electrons locally to get them moving at the
right speed. At the edge of the step there is a very large electric field as
the voltage changes discontinuously (assuming zero resistance; as McEwan
observes; the step will spread out (and also attenuate) if there is anmy resistance). What limits the resulting current is not
inertia (though this would limit how fast it would rise), but back-emf. Copied
by Ivor Catty on 27 July 2009. [Statement by Ivor Catt] The rest of this letter
should be somewhere in my files. I will try to find it. Ivor Catt.]
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/71.htm
Josephson attempts to end the Catt Anomally by
asserting pepper agrees with him. Forrest bishop in 2006 receives a
communication that he does not. The Anomally , that is a disagreement on EM theory is not resolved.
However Catt has by then devised a second Question.
In 1976 a new theory is born. Heavisides Energy
Current concept starts to bear fruit.
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/images/7876w.jpg
·
reddit
·
·
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://my.opera.com/jehovajah/blog/2013/08/27/on-a-theory-of-electromagnetism-theory-c
as on 29/8/2013
Re: Fractal Foundations of mathematics: Axioms notions and the set FS as a
model
http://www.fractalforums.com/index.php?action=profile;u=410;sa=showPosts
·
Archive
·
Friends
·
About
On a theory of Electromagnetism:
theory C
Tuesday, August 27, 2013 10:04:02 PM
Catt had been
solving several problems while addressing the electron / charge issue in the
Catt question. He and his co workers had moved to a transmission line model
first promoted by Heaviside, because a charge moving at the speed of light was
untenable. They dropped charge in favour of a signal
wave that induced charge as a current.
www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/images/7876w.jpg
They had a way to go yet , but they were building a
new paradigm one piece at a time.
Catt now hurriedly drafts out his theory
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/778b.htm
It is an advance on Heavisides Theory as recorded.
Catt's research could not turn up much to support Heaviside deriving this view,
because Heaviside was excised from the electrical community, and his work
unpublished, remaining scattered in his apartment in England.
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/z010.htm
Catt confirms his advance on Heaviside. But how had he come to this radical
conclusion?
http://http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/778.htm
Catt begins an exegesis on his theory, which due to induction from the energy
current which Walton described as crosstalk, was hurriedly formulated as above.
Later he publishes his theory of Elrctromagnetism.
Catt on the way to his theory bypasses Magnetism. His brief mention of Magnetic
domains is a cursory nod in that direction. His main depiction centres on the Poynting Vector which is normal to a
"wedge" of energy current, very thin and propagating by wave guides.
Thus he relies on the work of his colleagues and classical theory to explain
his own. He is therefore offering a revised theory with a different emphasis on
what is fundamental. He has no clue at this stage how untenable this is, even
though Lago had pointed this out. Catt is still in the process of working
through the ramifications of their discovery. Soon everything has to change,
including the Electron.
Clearly now out of his depth, and not getting collaborative support until he
forms an Alliance with Forrest Bishop. He struggles on to work out the
ramifications more fully, while documenting how the scientific establishment
actually works.
How had he come to obviate charge, and thus current? His reliance on the
Poynting Vector as a thin wedge, was a necessary device to replace charge, and thn current, but he had to define this as a primitive to
proceed. This meant that the electron was now radically in question. If he got
rid of the particle all he had remaining was a " wave" concept, the
other part of the wave particle duality.
This wedge somehow had to be the wave , and it had to be a step wave.
Laying out some principles he attempted to construct Electromagnetism from the
basis of Theory C, but he would not venture into the magnetic domain.
It has long been a desire to construct electromagnetism on the behaviour of electricity alone, but magnetism stubbornly
refuses to be suborned in this way! The Poynting Vector disguises a fundamental
difficulty in theory hitherto: the duality between electro statics and
Magnetostatics.
One thing falls naturally from Catts primitives: there
are no " statics"! To take Theory C to its fullest expression one
must look at Electrodynamics and Magneto dynamics
Justification.
In around 1965, I created a ring made up of one high speed (1.35nsec) inverting
ECL logic gate, some fat coaxial cable, and what was called a
"trombone". The trombone was a piece of coaxial "cable"
about half a metre long whose length could be varied,
like a trombone. Documentation discussed vswr, but
from our point of view the characteristic impedance down the trombone is very cosistent. This is because the Zo of a coaxial cable
depends on the ratio of the two radii involved. Thus, a thick section can slide
over a thinner section. Zo is very consistent if there is good contact at the
end of the thicker section where it connects, and hands over to, the thinner
section. A single step travelled round the ring, inverting each time it reached
the logic gate. The delay through the whole ring was about 10 nsec, so the period of the square wave was 20 nsec., with a 50% duty cycle, or 1 to 1 mark-space ratio. I
looked at the resulting waveform on a Tektronix 661 Sampling Oscilloscope with
a 4S1(100psec) or 4S2 plug-in. As I changed the length of the trombone, the
frequency of the square wave varied to suit. I studied, and also opened up and
carefully studied the sampling system of the sampling scope. It was clear that
what I was seeing was real. I was watching a voltage step travelling unchanged
down the cable. It was then inverted by the logic gate, and its inverse sent
down the cable. The sequence was then repeated. This was the seminal experiment
which convinced me of the physical reality of the TEM Wave. Heaviside called it
"Energy Current". Using a broad application of Occam's Razor, it then
behoves me to construct as much as I can of the
perceived physical universe out of such TEM Waves, or "Energy
Current". In the November 1979 and November 1980 issues of "Wireless
World", my co-author Dr. D. S. Walton replied to Professor Bell's August
1979 article; "No radio without displacement current", which sought
to contradict our December 1978 and March 1979 articles on Displacement
Current. Walton is here . Bell's claim that he had not
read our articles was false. The solution to the conundrum, that Bell claims he
was not replying in August 1979 to the Catt article of December 1978, is that
the way the Establishment replies to a new theory is to restate the old theory,
and so his claim arises out of semantic ambiguity. Bell refused to give me
permission to republish his article in my book "Death of Electric
Current", see p60. [nov79] " .... Aristotelians believed that a force
was necessary to keep bodies in motion and that, in the absence of this force,
the motion would cease..... air, displaced from ahead of the spear, rushed to
the rear and generated the requisite force - the theory was saved. .... "
- Walton. Compare with Kip ; " .... E gives rise
to a similar time and space variation of H (but at right angles to E) and that
this H variation acts back to cause the postulated variation of E. Thus, once
such a wave is initiated, it is self-propagating." A fuller version of
Walton is as follows; " .... Aristotelians believed that a force was
necessary to keep bodies in motion and that, in the absence of this force, the
motion would cease. This theory led them into certain difficulties. For
instance a spear, once thrown, appeared to continue to move without a force
being present. The philosophers rose to this challenge magnificently with the
theory that air, displaced from ahead of the sphere, rushed to the rear and
generated the requisite force - the theory was saved. Unfortunately they missed
the simple point first noted by Newton, that it is in the nature of a moving
body to continue to move. "In the same way I fear that Maxwell invented a
complex explanation for a very simple phenomenon, i.e. that electromagnetic
radiation, or energy current, moves at the speed of light - and that's all. No
mechanism invoking E producing H and H, in return, producing E is
required." - Walton Had the air displaced from the front of the body
merely proceeded to suck forward the body which displaced it, the explanation
would appear (more) patently absurd. This is why the relative phases of E and H
in a TEM Wave have to be suppressed, or at least confused, so that few
lecturers are sure. The truth is that E and H are in phase with each other,
making it very difficult to cope with the idea that they cause each other. If
they did, they would surely be out of phase with each other. However, even were
they out of phase, as some vaguely believe, "Mathverse"
indicates that problems would remain, because a complete cycle is 360 degrees,
not 180. The Answer to The Ultimate Question Of Life,
the Universe and Everything is a theoretical solution in Douglas Adams' book
series The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The "Answer" is simply
"42". In the story, the Answer to the Ultimate Question about Life,
the Universe, and Everything is produced using the hypercomputer
Deep Thought. It generated the Answer after a very long computation time (7.5
million years) Jackson is the leading text book used in American universities.
J D Jackson, "Classical Electrodynamics", pub. Wiley 1962/1975, p341;
"… we take note of a degenerate or special type of solution, called the ….
TEM wave. …. axial wave number …. ". Then follows some bizarre
mathematics. His feeling is that it is a great shame that the final destination
of such complex, ingenious mathematical manipulation is so simple
. Why did these gents never wonder why all the clever stuff led to so
little? They ignore my discovery that the same equations can be mathematically
derived from two thick short planks moving forward side by side at constant
velocity - a similar situation with little content, and minimal legitimate
mathematical manipulation. It is near impossible to explain the following point
by considering Maxwell's Equations as usually written, they are made to be so
complex. However, buried in the complexity of one of them is the assertion that
electric flux terminates on electric charge - Gauss's Law. Before Wikipedia
proceeds to make a banquet rather than merely a meal of it, it gives quite a
clear statement of the law; In physics and mathematical analysis, Gauss's law
is the electrostatic application of the generalized Gauss's theorem giving the
equivalence relation between any flux, e.g. of liquids, electric or
gravitational, flowing out of any closed surface and the result of inner
sources and sinks, such as electric charges or masses enclosed within the
closed surface. Try to grasp that this means that if a region has a varying
electric field, it must contain electric charge. Perhaps the clearest example
is that of a conducting sphere containing electric charge. According to Gauss's
Law, electric flux must be emitted from that sphere. The amount of flux is
equal to the amount of charge on the sphere. Is the electric flux an expression
of, or emanation from, the electric charge, or vice versa? In the case of a
plateau, the slope at its edge is only an expression of the amount of earth in
each region. The slope does not have another physical content compared with the
plateau. They are both made of earth. In particular, the slope merely
represents a diminishing amount of earth. Electric charge represents
diminishing flux density. Does it represent more than that? It certainly
represents a problem, see “ The Catt Question “. Note
that if electric charge lacked mass, "The Catt Question" would cease
to be a problem. Note that dE/dx is never claimed to
have mass, yet the electric charge that it is thought to represent does. The
slope of a hill does not exist. Only the plateau above exists. They are both
made up of the same material. Actually, not even the plateau exists. All that
exists is earth. It would be wrong to attribute different physical nature to
material merely because it made up a slope rather than a plateau. Here are some
quotations. Although a cloud cannot exist without edges, the edges of a cloud
do not exist. They have no width, volume, or materiality. However, the edges of
a cloud can be drawn. Their shapes can be manipulated graphically and
mathematically. The same is true of the so-called ‘electric current’. Half of
the primitives in electromagnetic theory disappear, and it ceases to be a
dualistic theory. Rho [charge density] and J [electric current] disappear,
becoming merely the physically non-existent results of the mathematical
manipulation of E and H Before the spring cleaning implicit in "Theory
C", electromagnetic theory remains the only dualistic theory, out of
kilter when compared with other 19th and 20th century theories. Such spring
cleaning is requested by Occam's Razor. The Single Velocity Universe Now we
move to the next matter, the Single Velocity Universe. Considerations of energy
conservation lead to the conclusion that the ratio of E to H is controlled by
the permittivity and permeability of the space traversed. Also, the velocity of
propagation of a TEM Wave is controlled by the permittivity and permeability of
the space traversed. It follows that, if everything is composed of TEM Waves,
then everything must travel at this velocity, c, 300,000. The conundrum that
many things, almost all things, seem to travel slower is dealt with by saying
such things travel on an eccentric path. See pp247 ,
248 etc. Also see attempts to design trapped Energy Currents, at The electron and The Crystal. Since I am convinced that I
saw the TEM Wave, "The Heaviside Signal" "slab of energy
current" version, not "The Rolling Wave" version, then Occam's
Razor requires that I construct as much as possible of the known physical
reality out of it. Now the TEM Wave is extremely versatile. Add to this the
fact that I have no comprehension of the so-called "particle",
because it has never been defined to my satisfaction, I am even more pressed to
construct out of the TEM Wave, including trying to construct something which
resembles the particle, as far as one can discern what "the particle"
is thought to be. This effort is at The electron and The Crystal. . Even e=mc2 seems to some out of the TEM Wave in
classical electromagnetism; see my web page; "It follows that energy W =
mc2. This formula, usually written e=mc2, is claimed for Poincare and later for
Einstein. Here it is derived from the TEM wave in a transmission line, using
only classical electromagnetic theory (Theory N)."
It is to be noted that magnetic effects like the Hall effect are inherent in
the primitive, but not addressed directly to explain if they are really
empirically distinct in the new paradigm. Some basi
magnetic research needs to be done using theory C .
Theory H propounded by Eric Dollard is richly littered with experimental
evidence in both electric and magnetic modes as well as electromagnetic mode.
The Poynting Vector propagation in Theory C is not fully addressed, although it
is only guided by wires , otherwise it is free to
propagate through space. How it propagates through space is not fully
addressed, only the " rolling Wave" explanation is denied as a
falsehood.
These lacks in Theory C are due to its lack of a proper description of magneto
dynamics.
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/images/7877.jpg
Catt begins the task of investigating magneto dynamics by showing Faradays
Induction Law is in Error as presented.
This second piece on induction takes the necessary magnetic analysis a stage
further, implying crosstalk was mistaken for induced current by changing
magnetic field.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/4_6.htm
It is useful to pause and note how quickly in presentation we have gone from a
particle description of electricity to a wave description . Catt removes the
charge, the current and the electron. On what grounds?
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/
First on a mistaken relativity argument, which is countered by McEwan and Josephon, and then
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/1_3.htm
The only grounds is the signal behaviour in a
transmission line!
In reality it took Catt several years to come to this groundbreaking
conclusion. But he found Heaviside had reached almost this stage before him.
Regardless of the systems established to describe electric and magnetic behaviour Catt only has to explain the observable output
from a capacitor. That output was a step pulse at half the capacitor voltage
for twice as long as the incident pulse! How?
In reaching his explanation Catt has to reflect the incident pulse in the
capacitor. The capacitor has an apparent potential of 2 times the incident
potential, and no apparent magnetic field. This is what needs to be
demonstrated in measurement, for it is from this that Cattdraws
the conclusion that a reflection of a pulse occurs; that this reflection is
lossless; that the Poynting vector only reverses the magnetic field in this
reflection, and thus doubles the electric field; that this doubling is illusory
as demonstrated by the capacitor output.
Catt explains how a battery drives a load, but when it drives s capacitor or a
transmission line, where the voltage appears to double inside the capacitor and
magnetic fields are set to zero.
Of course demonstrating this experimental evidence requires some skill. It is
also extremely naive to think that in demonstrating it science would be
immediately changed. Science, like any other group or collaborative effort has
a self interest. What was in it for science.?
Catt figured out a way to demonstrate his theory, making a curious prediction.
·
reddit
·
·
·
a theory of Electromagnetim: theory C
experimentally adduced!
