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

Oppo
walks the plank,

or
rather, two planks.

I myself published a
great deal on electromagnetic theory in the IEEE. However, when I got too far
ahead of the IEEE peer reviewers, this was no longer possible.

Later, a three man team
developed – Dr. David Walton, Malcolm Davidson and Ivor Catt. My team published
a great deal on electromagnetic theory in Wireless World, and Macmillan
published our book, **http://www.ivorcatt.org/digital-hardware-design.htm**** ,**
but we were embargoed as far as peer reviewed journals were concerned. After a
great deal of publishing in Wireless World and the IEEE, I decided to bite the
bullet, and address the revered “Maxwell’s Equations”, which turned out to be
the Heaviside-Maxwell Equations. I knew it was dangerous to analyse such a
sacred cow, so put only my name on the articles. Thus, my two colleagues would
survive any resulting shocked furore.

My first 1980 article
was relatively gentle; “Maxwell’s Equations Revisited” **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm**** . **There
were 19 replies, now no longer available. On p81 the editor the late Tom Ivall says he had decided to publish a representative sample.
It begins by discussing the equation which is identical to equation (1) in the Oppo six pages. The “sample” of p81 seems to say the
equation is illegal, while Oppo dismisses it as
merely meaning the (valid) truism 1=1.

My
second article; “The Hidden Message in Maxwell’s Equations” **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j184.pdf**** ** frightened off everyone.
Nobody commented. This was in line with the Pieraccini
admonishment thirty years later; **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.htm**** .
**** «Are you kidding?» “Nobody with an
ounce of common sense would risk their career and scientific reputation to
study the Catt anomaly” Massimo thought, “and even if they were
spending time on this, they wouldn’t be telling people about it”.**”

There the matter rested
for thirty years, until my partner Liba told me
Professor Oppo would be giving a lecture in the Italian
Institute, London, entitled; “The Genius of James Clerk Maxwell, the man who
made equations speak.”

Ten days before his
lecture on December 1 2017, I asked Oppo to read and
comment on my two articles. Apart from threatening legal action, he agreed to
so after his lecture.

It was so important to
get written comment on the Equations from an “expert” that, very fortunately,
Monica Vandory delivered a stunning attack on Oppo for threatening legal action. That must have been what
caused him to bite the bullet, and deliver what I call six pages rebutting my
articles – the first comment on my articles for thirty years.

This was admittedly a
diversion from my main operation, “The Catt Question” [cattq]
**http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm**** **into which
massive effort had gone during the thirty years. Cattq
is a much better stamping ground when trying to get serious discussion of
classical electromagnetism, since it is impossible to confuse it with
mathematical obfuscation.

Returning
to the 6pp Oppo.

In
the first half of page 3 Oppo takes my equation and
shows that it a truism, that something is equal to itself. But that was the
whole purpose of the equation, “from the known to the unknown”. I start with an
obvious identity and in simple stages show that a Maxwell Equation is mrerely an identity, and tells us nothing. The subterfuge
is, using the fact that E and H are always in fisxed
proportion, one side of the Maxwell equation uses D or e, and the other half
uses B or H. Using the same stratagem, in my paper I produced the ridiculous
equation dE/dx=--Z_{0}Ɛ_{0}dE/dt, see page 188 of **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j184.pdf**** . **Thus,
not only does changing E cause H and changing H cause E, but also changing E
causes E! The truth is, E and H do not cause each
other, as Einstein and Feynman wrongly believe, and everyone else followed
them.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x33k.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0102em.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2604.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/8cg.htm

The second part of his first page is routine
text book material. As always, the sine wave is infiltrated in it in Figure 1. Oppo says “Figure 1. A transverse
electromagnetic wave propagating along the direction x at a generic time t in
agreement with Maxwell’s equations.”

In
my article I wrote; “The result is either

dE/dx
= - dB/dt (3)

or

dH/dx = - dD/dt (4)

The text books say the “solution” to this pair
of equations is a sine wave! See references 3 to 7. (In fact, almost anything is
a solution to these equations.)

At this stage, the whole subject starts to look
sophisticated and profound. ”

Different
parts of a waveform in a transmission line can have no effect on each other,
and may be of any form including a sine wave. Oppo
throws in a red herring when he talks about a particular form of wave in a
transmission line. However, politically it is useful, part of the propaganda to
i9mply that electromagnetism has something to do with the sine wave, and
therefore with a glut of mathematics.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x33k.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0102em.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2604.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/8cg.htm