6pp Oppo- Catt, 6 12 17

General comment

We need to look for the “lateral arabesque”. Did
Maxwell give mathematicians the opportunity to hijack electromagnetic theory
when he said;

James Clerk Maxwell, A
Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, vol. 2, art. 782, p432; “*Hence our theory agrees with the undulatory theory in assuming the existence of a medium
which is capable of becoming a receptacle for two forms of energy*.”?

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/774c.htm

In this penultimate paragraph I mention in passing
The Lateral Arabesque, ‘Arabesque’ having the meaning ascribed to it by Dr
Peter rather than its dictionary meaning. In the engineering sense, the supposed
situation where academia controlling a discipline – electromagnetic theory for
example – maps onto the real subject, is unstable. If
at any moment the professors administering a discipline happen to be weak in
one branch of it, 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.

Comment on page 3

“thick as two short planks”

I question whether it originated as late as 1970,
but if it is so recent that explains why the phrase has not yet reached Italy.
If really so recent, as the 30,000 Google hits aver, we can understand why it
has been misquoted by Oppo as; “two thick short
planks”. However, I find that I, an Englishman, already misquoted it as “two
thick” rather than the correct sequence “thick …. two”.
This repeat of a misquote indicates that Oppo’s only source is Catt.

Oppo
should have kicked the whole subject into the long grass, Vector Calculus. It
is most fortunate that he stayed with differential equations, into which
Heaviside simplified Maxwell into four differential equations from (what are
said to be) the original Maxwell twenty Quaternions. Oppo
missed an opportunity to obfuscate here. My co-author Dr.
David Walton says vector calculus (∆s) is further divorced from physical
reality than differential equations.

**http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j134.pdf**

At this point it is helpful to reflect on the point
of Oppo’s six pages. I put forward Harry Ricker’s
analysis.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x81oppoharry.htm
“[Oppo] not only completely misunderstood what you
are saying, …. ….. you are a
crackpot …. …. prove what [he believes] is already true …. “

Oppo
correctly says that the first Catt equation (1) is nothing more than 1=1.

That was the point of starting here, from the known
1=1 to the unknown, During
my lecturer training and teacher training I may have been taught to go from the
known to the unknown, (University lecturers do not get teacher training.) 1=1
to Maxwell’s Equations. Do Maxwell’s Equations say anything beyond 1=1? In my
articles we see the progression from 1=1 to banal decorations of the same identity.

[Oppo] “Maxwell’s equations for this case are: dE/dx = dB/dt dB/dx = µε
dE/dt (3) – …. equations written for an electromagnetic wave propagating ….
”

Does Oppo think these
equations say E causes B and B causes E? If not, what is the point of these
equations? (I explain away the – sign elsewhere. It also contains no information.)

In the article he is supposedly commenting on **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j184.pdf**** **. On page 188, I
come up with the equally plausible (and vacuous) equations dE/dx
= -ZoεodE/dt and dE/dx =
-ZodD/dt , where E causes
E. (Zo and εo
are constants.) I say that these similarly banal equations have never been
mentioned, because it is even more obvious that they carry no content, as with
1=1. In contrast, Maxwell’s equations are camouflaged a little.

E or D, the electric field, is always proportional
to B or H, the magnetic field. All that is done is to juggle with E, H, µ and ε,
E and H being in fixed proportion and µ
and ε
are
constants.

As always in text books, Oppo
then without any justification produces a sine wave! “A transverse
electromagnetic wave …. ” is not a sine wave. It is
absolutely any possible wave. Any wave form whatsoever can propagate down a
transmission line, as Oppo begins to admit in the
figures on page 6. However, stuck in the era of radio before computers, he and
his like will never discuss a digital pulse (travelling down a USB cable). This
is because then the only possible equation is E=kB (E and B are in fixed
proportion) and the velocity *c* =
1/√µε

Imagine “The genius of James Clerk Maxwell, the man
who made equations speak”, and all Maxwell’s equations said was E=kB and c =
1/√µε . That would let the cat out of the bag, that electromagnetic
theory is not mathematical. Mathematicians like Oppo
have invaded my subject, dumping meaningless mathematics on it while ignoring
the physics. Note the other “lie” creeping in in Figures ,12
and 3, that the waveforms will have to be periodic. A signal down a USB cable
carries information by having a pseudo-random sequence of 1s and 0s. If the signal were periodic (repetitive), it would not carry
information.

Comment on page 4

Oppo
says a great deal about sine waves –half a page. But he is supposed to be
deconstructing my two articles on Maxwell’s Equations, which do not mention
sine waves. Neither do Maxwell’s Equations. The sine wave is probably never
mentioned in my five books on electromagnetic theory, or my published articles
on Maxwell, or my IEEE articles. **http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm**** **.

Oppo
lives in the age of radio, which includes radar. In the real world this was
overtaken by digital systems half a century ago, but academia and all education
and all text books, and Google suppress digital
electronics. **https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22transverse+electromagnetic+wave%22&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjh9ebL0vHYAhWmCsAKHW4-A-8QsAQIggE&biw=1600&bih=769**** **. I checked the
course notes in my Engineering faculty in Cambridge, and it was all sine waves.
The Cambridge engineering student is taught that what goes down a transmission
line is a sine wave. Then he is submerged in mathematics, which is not possible
with a digital signal. Mathematics does not stick to a single pulse, and even
less to a single step, which is what digital is about.

Late on page 4 Oppo says
my wood is “at thermodynamic equilibrium”.
He has no justification for saying that a burning piece of wood had
uniform temperature. He clearly fails to grasp the fact that I start with
truisms (1=1), gently develop truisms to Maxwell’s Equations, which is all they
are, and then develop the same for some wood which has density proportional to
temperature, mimicking B always being proportional to H with burning wood.
Maxwell’s Equations are going up in flames. Feynman said they were more
important than the American civil war of the same decade. Einstein said they
were the basis of relativity. It seems they lack content. No wonder spineless
men like Yakovlev or Davies go into hiding. People like that are frightened of
major scientific advance.

At this point I received Stephen Crothers’ 12pp
deconstruction of 6pp Oppo. So I am allowed to stop.
He has done a remarkable job.

Ivor Catt 28 January 2018