http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/howie999.htm
Being
There
Always on my Home Page; Riposte; I make the commitment that anyone wishing to
counter any assertion made on my websites will be guaranteed a hyperlink to a
website of their choosing at the point where the disputed assertion is made.
In 30 years, two people have
availed themselves of this facility, which should be on every Home Page.
Both Howie and Josephson say I
misrepresent what they say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcPQ9gww_qc "You
don't play games with words."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J38YRxjXC1U
"As always, ambiguous
language (e.g. the phrase ‘a charged capacitor’) leads to confusion." -
Professor Brian D Josephson
The statement;
‘a charged capacitor’ is as plain as a pikestaff.
There is no possibility that
anyone has difficulty understanding the word "stationary".
This kind of behaviour is a
disgrace.
This is the kind of gobbledeygook, or extremely destructive nonsense, by people
in high places that makes it possible for teachers and nervous junior lecturers
around the world to continue to teach children what is now clearly proved to be
text book nonsense camouflaged by nonsensical mathematics (much of it
wrong http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf ) added to by "theoretical
physicists" in CERN and elsewhere at enormous expense, at least some of
whom never did an experiment in their lives. Oppo https://www.strath.ac.uk/staff/oppogian-lucaprof/ said in the lecture I heard that
he did not do experiments because he tended to destroy the equipment.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/Oppo_complete.pdf
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j184.pdf
Howie called this article “outrageous”, but made no technical comment on it.
His future comments will be added here. Please would “Theoretical Physicist”
Josephson also comment?
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j197.pdf
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Hawking-Catt.html
Note that everyone under 65
keeps to the code of omerta of the academic mafia.
Ivor
Catt 28.8.2020
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
|
Thu, 27 Aug, 16:24 (18 hours ago) |
|
||
|
||||
Dear Malcolm,
Your message, reiterating your view about the fundamental status in
electromagnetism of E x H energy flow and impedance, prompts me to ask
you you again how precisely experimental facts,
particularly about the
actual amplitude of reflections at the coaxial cable terminations
support your position.
I have been thinking a bit more about what happens when a coaxial cable
of impedance Zc is simply terminated. When either a
step or a pulse
arrives there, a step or pulse of say positive charge appears at the end
of the central wire with a corresponding step or pulse of negative
charge on the sheath. I am increasingly certain that this axially
symmetric dipole cannot radiate! It then follows that the step or pulse
must be reflected back down the cable with reflection amplitude Ra = 1.
However, according to the infinite plane interface formula that you have
quoted from time to time, we should have Ra = (Z0 - Zc)/(Z0
+ Zc) = 0.76
for a cable impedance Zc = 50ohm and free space Z0 =
376 ohm. I notice
that Alex Yakovlev in his paper actually assumes Ra = 1 so perhaps he
has empirical reasons to prefer this result to the one you would deduce?
It does not after all require a very accurate measurement to sort this
out!
If the central wire were left protruding by a substantial distance (of
the order of the step length I suspect) radiation could occur.
Once again the situation is I think quite different for the geometry of
a capacitor with circular plates. This can I believe radiate when a step
reaches the periphery. So the reflection coefficient will be less than 1
though possibly a bit larger than (Z0 - Zc)/(Z0 +Zc). The details of the
charging or discharging sequence mediated by steps cycling to and fro
will therefore be a bit different. More seriously, the idea of long term
charge storage through step running mechanism will now be killed not
just by ohmic dissipation but by radiation losses.
Archie Howie.
28.8.2020
|
11:01 (53 minutes ago) |
|
||
|
||||
Dear Malcolm,
I am sorry if your frequent references to the impedance Z0=376 ohms of
free space have lead me to think that you were using this value to
compute the reflection amplitude at the open end of a coaxial cable of
impedance Zc to be Ra = (Z0 - Zc)/(Z0
+ Zc). If in fact your practical
experience indicates that Ra = 1 then I am happy since this would be
consistent with the idea that a coaxial cable terminated in this way
cannot radiate.
In this respect I think that a twisted pair with an open termination
will be different since the since the dipole appearing with a plus
charge at the end of one wire and an equal minus charge at the end of
the other can radiate though maybe not very much unless the separation
of the two wires is closer to the rise distance of the EM steps
propagating in the guide. Ra in this case would I think be a bit less
than 1.
Archie Howie.
28.8.2020
|
11:52 (9 minutes ago) |
|
||
|
||||
Dear Harry Ricker,
Yes. I agree with you because the cylindricaly
symmetric EM wave (or
step) that can propagate in the cable because of the presence of the
central wire, cannot propagate beyond the end of the cable into free
space. It may well be different for a twisted pair with a sufficient
lateral distance between the end points of the two wires and different
also for a capacitor with parallel circular plates.
Maybe however you have a different reason for your one sentence
assertion?
Archie Howie.
Intellectual
incompetence or fear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcPQ9gww_qc
This excellent piece by Harry Ricker illustrates, or
rather proves, the intellectual incompetence, or fear of stepping outside the
canon, of all those who were “being there” in high places in the world of
“science” during more than the last century.
They dare not investigate their shibboleth Maxwell. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x892max.pdf
2pm BST 28.8.2020
Re: answering Tony Davies
Re: philosophy
|
Inbox |
x |
|
13:53 (4 hours ago) |
|
||
|
||||
Ivor,
You are to be
congratulated for bringing to my attention the confusion of the rolling wave in
physics. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j51.pdf
Before that I had accepted the
rolling wave as discussed in physics textbooks, but I had not thought much
about it until I read your paper.
The claim of the
mainstream textbooks is that Clerk Maxwell unified electricity and magnetism
via the Maxwell equations. This claim can be verified by entering,
"unification of electricity with magnetism" and searching using that
phrase. This produces the following results: (PDF) The Unification of
Electricity and Magnetism This paper by David Tombe says that the unification is brought about by
Maxwell's invention of displacement current, which Catt et. al. effectively
proved is a bogus concept in the Wireless World article of 1978.
Another search
result is this paper, which purports to explain how the unification is
accomplished by Maxwell's equations. Maxwell’s Equations-Unification of
Electricity & Magnetism: Demystified – Abdul Haque Mohammed
Unfortunately, this
paper doesn't really explain how the unification is proved. It does make this
rather famous statement:" However, if the fields are changing it is
impossible for either to exist separately; a changing electric field will
produce a magnetic field, and a changing magnetic field produces an electric
field. From this it is clear that electricity and magnetism essentially are two
different aspects of same thing." This statement is falsified by the
simple example of the EM wave as shown in any textbook. Those drawings show the
E and H fields in phase and contradict the curl equations presented in the
textbooks. Hence the unification of electricity with magnetism as claimed in
the textbooks must be considered as unproven and the so
called proofs must be false. What that means is that there needs to be
some additional assumption about the nature of the unification of electricity with
magnetism needed to accomplish the unification. That is because
none of the claimed unification arguments presented in the textbooks is
correct, and that means there is no established proof of the unification.
Malcolm has suggested
in his paper that the additional assumption needed (he calls it a primitive,
but means a postulate or assumption regarding the unification principle) is the
Heaviside energy current postulate of S=ExH.
He additionally
states that: "We know that space is a resistive medium which has the
ability to accommodate energy, with Zo being 376 ohms." This
last statement seems to be what is confusing A. Howie who misunderstands
it.
I can certainly
understand why B. Josephson A. Howie and others reject these advancements that
Catt et al have proposed over 40 years ago. They are under the mistaken
assumption that the textbooks are correct in the statements they make regarding
the unification of electricity and magnetism. Unfortunately
a close examination of the arguments presented doesn't stand up to close
scrutiny, and so a new approach is needed. The resistance to the proposed
Catt et al method of unification of electricity with magnetism is
impeding a very important scientific advance. It is unfortunate that this
fact is not appreciated by the mainstream physics community.
Harry
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: Ivor
Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2020 4:48 PM
To: Alex Yakovlev <Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk>
Cc: Malcolm Davidson <malcolmd3111@hotmail.com>
Subject: ideas
⚠
External sender. Take care when opening links or attachments. Do not provide
your login details.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/howie.pdf
I think Koestler said
the tribe Bulgarian had a habit. If one of their tribe came up with an original
idea, they would hang him from the nearest tree pour encourager les autres. I suppose they prized tribal solidarity above all.
When the parrot is
trained to speak, and examined as to its p to prowess, it is also taught what
not to speak, and examined for that.
Perhaps the parrot
who is rewarded with the most seed is the one who has proven he is the best for
not understanding certain speech, rather than what he does successfully
speak.
It is not his fault
that Josephson was granted a Nobel Prize very young. It is not his fault that
Archie rose to the top of the Cavendish, or Tony Davies was voted onto the
Board of Directors of the IEEE, or Palmer got prizes for being the bestest mostest lecturer in
Oxford University. They all rose on the back of brilliance in a very narrow
branch of knowledge (perhaps mathematical gobbledeygook?).
Nobody told Rees, another parrot, that he was not permitted to reply, when Catt
asked him, as an administrator, Master of Trinity and President of the Royal
Society, to deal with the fact that Josephson and Pepper, members of his staff,
contradicted each other on the fundamentals of their craft, cattq, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm , that
it was not permissible for him to say he first had to master cattq himself, before doing anything about it as an
administrator. (Actually the Master and President
of the Royal Society did nothing for the next 27 years.) Once they rose to
fame, they themselves and everyone else attributed to them skill in a much
broader range. Everyone assumes they went on to broaden their expertise,
finding out about essential peripheral subjects; history of science, philosophy
of science, sociology of science. Today, have they ever heard of Koestler,
Kuhn, Polanyi, Popper? Who told them to read them, and when?
5
And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it
sprang up, because it had no depth of earth:
6 But when the sun was up, it was scorched;
and because it had no root, it withered away.
Were I in their position, I would be arrogant, and afraid. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.pdf
I would probably
cling to the religion called "Instrumentalism" to hide my possible
weakness. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x231.pdf
Ivor Catt
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/howie.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6cj.htm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
30.8.2020
Alex,
Discussion of logic gates AND,
OR, XOR is innocent. Similarly discussion of FSRs
(Feedback Shift Registers) where the exclusive OR at the end is added at
the front.
1111. 0111, 0011, 0001, 1000,
0100, 0010, 1001, 1100, 0110, 1011, 0101, 1010, 1101, 1110, 1111. A sequence of
n bits usually repeats at 2 to the power n minus 1; in this case 15.
Research into when a series does not extend to the full 2 to the power n minus
1 does not threaten careers. (All zeros is always
missing.)
Although this subject (chain
codes, feedback shift registers FSRs) has probably not developed within
the canon - subjects a careerist like Tony Davies knows (in his 20,000 words of
emails to me which probably discussed at length) he can safely discuss
without offending his fellow-members in "the club",
instrumentalists who control "the club" and membership of which
means receiving accolades, career promotion and medals, and passage through
peer (consensus) review towards publishing. Similarly, discussion of XOR,
and my experience that when designing a system I
used an equal amount of NOR, NAND and XOR (in defiance of Boole), although
such a scientific advance did not threaten the canon, or threaten
all the careers and prestige under the canon. However, when Tony Davies told a
fellow member of the club that Catt said a capacitor did not have a self resonant frequency, his club fellow member reacted
with horror and ran away.
That is, what Howie now
calls "senior scientists" instinctively know what threatens the
canon, and may not be discussed or even thought about, or understood.
Crimestop 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 protective stupidity.
- G. Orwell, 1984, pub.
Chancellor, 1984 edn., p225
...
‘If you have got
anything new … you need not expect anything but hindrance from the old
practitioner even though he sat at the feet of Faraday. Beetles could do
that … . But when the new views have become
fashionably current, he may find it worth his while to adopt them, though,
perhaps in a somewhat sneaking manner, not unmixed with bluster, and make
believe he knew all about it when he was a little boy!’ – Oliver Heaviside, 10 March 1893.
Davies says he knew about Energy
Current when he was a little boy.
I feel MICE instinctively
know what may, and what may not, be thought about. What may, or may not,
be understood. cattq must not be understood. Howie
pretends it is a disagreement between him and me, not a Question. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
The Italians claim it is an
assertion that there is a flaw in classical electromagnetism, calling it
"Catt's Anomaly".. They have to not
understand that it is merely a Question, or their careers and reputations
are at risk.
This evolved attitude is the
opposite of the scientist of the past's avowed ambition - the discovery of new
insights into nature, whether or not leading to benefit to the public,
benefit for self (but only preferably of benefit). We have to ask whether
instrumentalists think they are of social value. I suppose they do think they
are, because their "instruments" help in the design of user-friendly
things like aircraft or computers or drugs. Their hidden agenda is to block
scientific advance; scientific revolution like Theory D http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x8cbwash.htm would
impede their careers. Thay have to be cleared out of
the stables, with their oxymoronic "truth that there exists not one
truth".
I must add this to my website,
at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/howie9999.htm
During the last 20 years, only
two people have taken advantage of my commitment
Riposte; I make the
commitment that anyone wishing to counter any assertion made on my websites
will be guaranteed a hyperlink to a website of their choosing at the point
where the disputed assertion is made.
The www should have been
understood as being a revolutionary medium for dialogue, not the monologue of
all earlier communication media. Every website home page should have [R],
a hyperlink to the set of disagreements to that web page. Why does the
rest of the world insist on not understanding my proposal of 20 years
ago?
Ivor Catt