19 May 2015
After being silenced for 30 years, "The Catt Question" was rubbished in a peer reviewed journal in 2012 in an article entitled "Catt's Anomaly" . Here are my comments on the article. The last time Catt’s own writing was accepted in peer reviewed journals was in 1987 . However, these IEEE entries in 1983 and 1987 were only short notes. The last substantial article by Catt to get past peer review (into an IEEE journal, or into any other peer reviewed journal) was in 1967, half a century ago. No writing by Catt has ever got past peer review in the second largest organisation, the London IEE/IET. Chris Spargo has been identified by the IEE as a rising star in our field, winning their prizes etc.
To Professor Alex Yakovlev and Chris Spargo, Newcastle University. Following the four hour Catt/Walton seminar at the university, which Professor Yakovlev organised and chaired, and which they both attended.
Dear Chris, Alex,
You must see that it would be a shame if I had to trawl through past emails and perhaps came to the wrong conclusion. It would surely be better for us all if you confirmed what I think your positions are, or that you correct me.
"Please would Alex comment as to whether there is a fatal flaw in classical electromagnetism?"
Is the following 1, 2, 3 the correct summary of Chris's position;
1 There is no fundamental flaw in classical electromagnetism, which includes the TEM Wave.
2 If the Severn Bore travels upstream at 10 fps, some water must travel at the full 10 fps. (Actually, we are referring to an idealised version of the TEM Bore; smooth, flat water, then a sudden step, and behind the step, higher smooth, flat water)
3 If a TEM step guided by two conductors travels at the speed of light, no charge has to travel at the speed of light. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm .
If, as I predict, "Modern Physics", including classical electromagnetism, implodes in, say, 2050, then what you say in 2015 will be very interesting during the inquest. You have had four hours of lecture from Dave Walton and me, and Chris has also had two hours on Skype with me. If, after all that, we have failed to convince you, then my close colleagues and I will know that it will be impossible at the present time to convince any expert in the world that there are fundamental flaws at the core of today's "Modern Physics".
I shall put your answers on the www, which the British Library says they will preserve.
I think that my research shows that critical analysis only operates within the confines of the reigning paradigm. If such a paradigm is challenged, then critical analysis is no longer used. This result will shine valuable light on the transition from Phlogiston to oxidation, or from caloric to the kinetic theory of heat. Note that no mathematics was used in those last two transitions.
Not surprisingly, the survival instinct takes precedence over critical analysis.
means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of
any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of
failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments
if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or
repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical
direction. Crimestop, in short, means
- G. Orwell, 1984, pub. Chancellor, 1984 edn., p225
After not appearing in any peer reviewed journal for 30 years, Catt was rubbished in a peer reviewed journal in 2012 in an article called "Catt's Anomaly" . The article described Catt as “an amateur scientist”. Since Catt had not existed in the “peer reviewed community” for 30 years, why did he have to be attacked?
Ivor Catt May 2015
The IEE never allowed Catt to publish on "Catt Spiral" , although while the project was progressing, a member of the IEE’s staff, Mr. Dettmer, did publish something on it.
In May 2015 the Wikipedia article on “Ivor Catt” contained the following; “Ivor Catt (born 1935) is a British electronics engineer known principally for his alternative theories of electromagnetism. He received a B.A. degree from Cambridge University, and has won two major product awards for his innovative computer chip designs, including the Electronic Design magazine's "best product of the year" award on 26 October 1989, after £16 million funding.”
April 13, 2015
” Dear Ivor,
It is interesting that there are multiple views on this. Some day, I hope we may all get to the bottom of this and all agree on it!
The above is Chris Spargo writing on "The Catt Question". http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm I think we can learn a lot from him.
A very small number of people including me believe that "The Catt Question" points to one of the biggest advances in the history of science, called "Theory C". It is not on the scale of Galileo or Newton's Laws of Motion, but it takes its place at the level of the disappearance of Phlogiston and of Caloric. "The Catt Question" is only a Question about classical electromagnetism. It is not a theory. It is not "Theory C".
It would be helpful if Dave Walton and Forrest Bishop confirmed that that the above is also their own view.
The big advance, called "Theory C", states;
"When a battery is connected to a lamp by two wires and the lamp lights, electric current is not involved."
"Theory C" does not state than the electron does not exist, or that electricity does not exist. It also does not state that they do exist.
At http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/1_3.htm , Catty attempted to construct an electron, and failed.
The belief that the work of Catty and his colleagues is merely "business as usual" with merely a little tweaking leads to much misunderstanding, as indicated by what Chris has written, above.
" I hope we may all get to the bottom of this and all agree on it! - CS " written about those who held to phlogiston theory and those who held to oxidation theory would be bizarre, but it happened, where a combination of the two theories was attempted.
Ivor Catt 25 May 2015
12:34 PM (1 hour ago)
Please feel free to forward this mail to others who may be concerned.
1. I am completely convinced that there is a fundamental problem with Maxwellian electrodynamics as identified most clearly in the 'Catt Question' and similar. The problem is that, when a TEM step is propagating along a two conductor transmission line, there is no mechanism whereby the charge can flow at sufficient speed (ie at the velocity of light) in order to provide the additional charge needed to account for the electric field.
2. There is an additional problem with Maxwell, in that vacuum must contain a polarisable medium (ether?) in order to account for the phenomenon of capacitance and displacement current.
3. I believe a new theory is required in which electromagnetic energy is taken as the fundamental quantity and so-called static electric and magnetic fields are constructed from it.
4. In a simple circuit energy flows from the source of EMF to the load by travelling through the space between the conductors, (see Poynting Vector). In my view it is not necessary, nor is it helpful to discuss the reality or otherwise of the current in the wires.
I trust this is helpful to all concerned.
Kind regards .................... Dave
29 May 2015
Here are cases where information about physical reality, which is what proper electromagnetic theory is about, is lost when something physical is communicated mathematically. Causality is lost, because the = sign is used where it should be an arrow, as in chemistry.
"This induction was due to the change in magnetic flux that occurred when the battery was connected and disconnected."
"When the flux changes—because B changes, or because the wire loop is moved or deformed, or both—Faraday's law of induction says that the wire loop acquires an EMF, , defined as the energy available from a unit charge that has travelled once around the wire loopp
The above essential feature of Faraday's Law is then lost in the Wikipedia article when an attempt is made to state his law mathematically.
V = - dΦ/dt
This move from English to Mathsspeak is also a serious loss when we come to Heaviside's greatest contribution, "We reverse this .... ". He says the current does not cause the field - the field caused the current. This concept, of reversing causality, is excluded from mathematics. This is a concept which I regard as Heaviside's greatest contribution to electromagnetic theory, and it is not stated mathematically. Theoretical Physicist (= mathematical physicist) and Nobel Prizewinner Brian Josephson, writing to me, dismissed Heaviside's "We reverse this .... " as merely "a matter of opinion". Which causes which is merely "a matter of opinion!!! At qanother time Josephson wrote; "Follow the maths".
Chris Spargo recently followed John Dore's persistent refrain, that classical theory produced so many practical successes that it must be correct, and for both of them Catt needs to produce practical successes based on his theory. I thought that this was a weakness in my position, that I was only theoretical. Today I realised, at last, that this is a corruption of history. The reason why I developed new insights was that, in Motorola in the 1960s, I had to put together the fastest logic, and would fail using classical theory. To succeed, I had to develop new insights. The same happened when Sinclair set up a company to develop "Catt Spiral". I explained to Mike Brent how he could (as he successfully did) deliver the 5v supply across the whole WSI wafer using the concept of Energy Current.
Another example of the corruption of history was when I read that Quantum Electrodynamics gave us the integrated circuit, which got us to the moon. I was in Motorola when integrated circuits were first developed, and there was no mention of quantum electrodynamics. Thus, past successes using novel theory or at least (Quantum) not using established theory are being claimed for Establishment theory.
Ivor Catt 29 May 2015
5 June 2015
In reply to your question "Do you know who CWPP is?"
Dr. John Roche refuses to tell me who his friend CWPP at the Clarendon, expert on electromagnetic theory, is. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2bg.pdf Roche's loyalty to his friend takes precedence over his loyalty to science. This is remarkable, since Roche was very brave when in the public interest he went after Opus Dei even though he had lost 15 years as a member of it. http://www.odan.org/media_roche.htm . I went through the staff at the Clarendon, and could not find CWPP. Once Roche emailed to me that I was a top expert in electromagnetic theory.
I am very unhappy that it took me two days to stumble on this email question of yours. Krystof, the son of my partner Liba, moved me to gmail, and I have real trouble dealing with my emails now, and might miss some, an example being your question about CWPP.
My research moves from electromagnetic theory to the Politics of Knowledge. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/w4rlectu.htm . Note that that has occupied me for decades. My lecture was in 1996, 20 years ago, when I had already been suppressed for decades, and so was researching into why this was happening..
Generally, my work hits a brick wall. This block is virtually 100%, but not quite. For instance, you found an IEEE 2012 article "Catt's Anomaly". http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf . This seemed to undermine my much simpler story, that the IEEE had blocked me for 50 years ever since my big IEEE 1967 article. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm . This story, or behavioural model, was already tainted by the two very short pieces of mine in the IEEE in 1983 and 1987. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22k1.pdf . However, they have all been ignored. Alex Yakovlev cited Rosenstark's book over Tektronix leading to Wakefield, over a double length pulse coming out of a long thin charged capacitor. Over crosstalk, Rosenstark emailed me to say he wished he had read my 1967 paper before he wrote his book. (My article undermined what he wrote on crosstalk.) This leads to the second stage, that if something is published in a peer reviewed journal it is not read anyway. Rosenstark did not read Catt. In around 1980, the editor of one of the top peer reviewed journals told me he estimated that on average, a peer reviewed article is read four times, and 1.5 times if it was mathematical. This was also stated by another editor. (The purpose of publishing in a peer reviewed journal is career advance, not scientific communication. Today, the number of peer reviewed journals has got out of hand, and the number of articles, many more than in 1980.) Thus, when an "expert" says he does not have to read an article published in a non-peer reviewed journal, this does not mean that he reads peer reviewed journals. Today, no professor or text book writer in the world knows the content of my very important 1967 article (praised by Rosenstark after I pointed it out to him) or my 1980s IEEE articles, cited above..
I don't think Rosenstark knows that when a long thin capacitor is discharged, it produces a pulse twice the length of the capacitor, although Tektronix published this in 1963..http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x212.pdf . It is not in his book; "Transmission lines in computer engineering." His mention of double length on page 51 was not relevant, as can be seen from his emails to me. Yet Alex cites Rosenstark when he hints that with Wakefield I have nothing new, as you do too. He thinks my work is in Rosenstark.
The tiny handful of people in the whole worldwho communicate at all have to be congratulated. They comprise virtually no one but you, Chris Spargo, Alex Yakovlev, John Roche, the two authors of http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf and virtually no one else. At the crucial core of electromagnetic theory, which is at the centre of science, is virtually a void. Some people get involved with me, but after a few years they drift away (when nothing seems to happen). This led me to publish "Where are they?" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x256.pdf . Forrest Bishop agrees with me that there is no one there. Your discovery of http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x256.pdf while on Skype with me tends to undermine this clear, simple statement, which however remains true.
I have told you that my target is the inquest in 2050 into what went wrong, after "Modern Physics" has imploded, as surely it must. The fatal flaws at its core will surely not be covered up for ever, although I am not certain of this. As the funding for science increases, the defence of reigning paradigms strengthens.