"There is indeed "anomalous" behavior going on here. ?Catt is
trying to deceive the reader, having no doubt first deceived himself. --Kirk
22 March 2012
Dear Professor McDonald,
I am perfectly happy to approach you direct.
Ivor Catt
Dear Brian Josephson,
I note that you muddied the issue recently by
wrongly asserting that today's "Catt Question" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
was different from the Question posed to
Pepper and McEwan in 1993, reproduced in my book
published in 1996. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm pp3 and 4, which was in your College library
in 1996 and remains there today. It was first published in Wireless
World in August 1981 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j86.pdf pp95-96 and August
1982.http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j100.pdf pp103-105 .Professor McDonald is
bringing in the same misinformation.
It would be helpful if you corrected Professor
McDonald, and say you now accept that "The Catt Question" has
remained unchanged for more than 30 years.
Ivor Catt
To recap. My work on high speed digital electronics was
published in the IEEE in 1967 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm , and some in ProcIEEE 1983 and 1987 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22k1.pdf
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22k1.pdf . However, even before 1983 essentially
100% recommendation of peer review rejection ruled in all my work in all
refereed journals in the world. That led me to abandon promotion of my own
work, and reverting to trying to get information as to the detail of classical
theory, which runs into fatal flaws when a TEM step is delivered guided by two
conductors, so thaqt fundamental questions about
classical theory are unanswerable. (For instance, recently Brian Josephson
refuses to answer whether the displacement current dD/dt on the front face of a TEM step causes magnetic field.)
This led to "The Catt Question" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm ,
which all experts refused to answer, except Pepper and McEwan,
who were chosen by their superiors and instructed to write to me. I was careful
to not initially choose them, approach them or to reply to them. They wrote
once, and then went incommunicado for some decades. When they were told by
third parties that they contradicted each other, they refused to communicate
with other to resolve their differences. Their superiors refused to do anything
about it.
Some time later Nobel Prizewinner
Brian Josephson entered the fray. He has played a peripheral role, being
himself suppressed, about which he complains bitterly in New Scientist and his
website, because he tangles with the paranormal, which is not kosher science.
However, he is out in the cold for other reasons than I am.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kirk T McDonald
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 8:31 PM
To: Ivor Catt
Cc: Kirk McDonald
Subject: Re: a reply of sorts
Ivor,
If I follow your comments below, you acknowledge
that the letter of Pepper
that you post is irrelevant to the "Catt
anomaly" (despite your web page
appearing to imply that Pepper's letter does address that
"anomaly", and is
evidence of "confusion" among those who consider
this "anomaly").
Do you then acknowledge that the communication from
Josephson correctly
resolves this (trivial) anomaly?
If so, there is no more "anomaly" in a
technical sense, just misleading web
pages about it.
--Kirk
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 3:56 PM
To: kc3mx@yahoo.com ;
kirkmcd@Princeton.EDU
Subject: Fw: a reply of
sorts
I am now sending this to Harry, copy to the
Professor.
The behaviour of Professor Kirk T McDonald <kirkmcd@princeton.edu>
is
disgraceful, and I look forward to an apology from him.
Ivor Catt
-----Original Message-----
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:46 PM
To: Forrest Bishop ;
sirius184@hotmail.com ; bdj10@cam.ac.uk
Subject: Re: a reply of sorts
Dear All,
Coming home from abroad, I find this isolated
email. It is extraordinary.
I don't think http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/71.htm
should be
called an "explanation", of Cattq
or of anything else..
However, leaving that aside, the next section is
bizarre.
"> But Catt tries to confuse the reader by
first presenting a link to an
answer
> to a different
question.
> http://www.ivorcatt.com/2812.htm
" - Prof. Kirk
But 2812 is the answer Pepper gave to cattq.
See http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm , pages 3 and 4,
published in the
1990s.
Interestingly, Nobel Prizewinner
Brian Josephson
bdj10@cam.ac.uk<bdj10@cam.ac.uk> recently
said in an email that cattq now is
different from the cattq delivered
to Pepper in the 1990s. I reacted very
strongly to this. The version Pepper replied to in 1993 is
in the book in
his college library published shortly afterwards, now
on the www at
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm , and is identical
with the version
today, at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
. Not a word has changed in 30
years. It is not my fault that Pepper's reply to the one
and only question
he ever received is incompetent and irrelevant. It is
a pity that seeing its
irrelevance, Kirk assumed that it was an answer to a different
question.
This habit of entrenched professors to confuse the
issue and falsify history
is really extraordinary. I feel they should take
their profession and
discipline more seriously and deal with it in a disciplined
way. This
delivery of misinformation is very irresponsible.
Please would Forrest and David circulate this email
to those who have been
misled by Kirk, below. I was not on the circulation.
Ivor Catt
-----Original Message-----
From: Forrest Bishop
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 9:34 AM
To: ivor catt
Subject: a reply of sorts
On 16 March 2012 20:56, Kirk T McDonald
<kirkmcd@princeton.edu> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> The "Catt Anomaly" is displayed on a
web page
> http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/cattq.htm
> that also has a link
to its explanation.
> http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/71.htm
>
> But Catt tries to confuse the reader by first
presenting a link to an
> answer
> to a different
question.
> http://www.ivorcatt.com/2812.htm
> Catt then implies that because the different question
has a different
> answer
> there is an
"anomaly".
>
> There is indeed "anomalous" behavior going on here. ?Catt is
trying to
> deceive the reader, having no doubt first
deceived himself.
>
> --Kirk
>
> PS ?Michael Pepper
states "If I understand the position correctly, your
> question concerns the
source of the charge at a metal surface which by
> responding to the presence of the EM wave
ensures that the reflectivity of
> the metal surface is virtually unity."
>
> Pepper believes he was asked to discuss the
character of charges on/near the surface of a "mirror".
[ This was the Question
Pepper received in 1993 from the Master of Trinity. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm.
Sept 2013. ]
> Catt claims he asked Pepper a different
question, about charges on wires
> of
> a transmission line,
but does not show us what Pepper was actually asked.
> This is probably because it appears that Catt
never directly asked Pepper
> anything, but first
asked something of someone else, who then asked Pepper
> something.
>
> The Catt/Pepper story is a sorry one of
miscommunication, not of
> "anomalous"
> physics.
>
> PPS ? ?Dear List,
>
> Please feel free to contact me directly about
this at
> kirkmcd@princeton.edu
>
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
[AAAA]
On 16 March 2012 20:56, Kirk T McDonald
<kirkmcd@princeton.edu> wrote:
Folks,
The
"Catt Anomaly" is displayed on a web page
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/cattq.htm that also has a link to its explanation. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/71.htm
But Catt tries to confuse the reader by first
presenting a link to an answer to a different question. http://www.ivorcatt.com/2812.htm Catt then implies that because the different question has a different
answer there is an "anomaly".
There is indeed "anomalous" behavior going on here. ?Catt is
trying to deceive the reader, having no doubt first deceived himself.
[ For more than 30 years
there was a single question, which remained unchanged. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
Sept 2013 ]
.......................
PPS ? ?Dear List,
Please feel
free to contact me directly about this at
kirkmcd@princeton.edu
--Kirk
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
The rest of this document is from the book “The Catt
Anomaly” published 1996 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/28anom.htm . It is in the library of Sir Michael Pepper’s
College (at the time), Trinity College Cambridge. The question remained
unchanged for thirty years, and is now unchanged at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm .
There has always been only one Question
CATT'S ANOMALY
Traditionally. when a
TEM step (i.e. logic transition from low to high) travels through a vacuum from
left to right, guided by two conductors (the signal line and the 0v line),
there are four factors which make up the wave;
- electric current in the
conductors
- magnetic field, or flux,
surrounding the conductors
- electric charge on the
surface of the conductors
- electric field, or flux,
in the vacuum terminating on the charge.
The key to grasping the anomaly is to concentrate
on the electric charge on the bottom conductor. During the next 1 nanosecond,
the step advances one foot to the right. During this time, extra negative
charge appears on the surface of the bottom conductor in the next one foot
length, to terminate the lines (tubes) of electric flux which now exist between
the top (signal) conductor and the bottom conductor.
Where does this new charge come from? Not from the
upper conductor, because by definition, displacement current is not the flow of
real charge. Not from somewhere to the left, because such charge would have to
travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. (This last sentence is what those
"disciplined in the art" cannot grasp, although paradoxically it is
obvious to the untutored mind.) A central feature of conventional theory is
that the drift velocity of electric current is slower than the speed of light. [Published in Electronics & Wireless World sep84, reprinted
sep87. For further information on the Catt Anomaly, see letters in the
following issues of Wireless World; aug82, dec82, aug83, oct83, dec83, nov84,
dec84, jan85, feb85, may85, june85, jul85, aug85.]
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
p4
1caanbky
Trinity College, Cambridge, wrote to past members of the college
including myself asking for money to finance their expansion programme. They
argued that Trinity had been in the forefront of academic advance, and my money
would help to keep them there.
I replied that Trinity and Cambridge had for twenty-five years refused
to comment in any way on Catt's theories on electromagnetism, and for ten years
on the Catt Anomaly, a problem in classical electromagnetism, of which I
enclosed a copy (above). I suggested to Atiyah,
Master of Trinity, a mathematician, that he cause his
leading expert to comment. The result was the following letter from Pepper. I
also include a part of his later letter to my colleague Raeto
West, which clarifies his position;
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS
CAVENDISH LABORATORY
MADINGLEY ROAD
CAMBRIDGE CB3 0HE
From: Professor M. Pepper, FRS June 21, 1993
Ivor
Catt, Esq.,
121 Westfields,
St Albans
AL3 4JR
Dear Mr Catt,
As a Trinity physicist the Master
suggested that I might provide some comments on the questions raised in your
recent letter to him on aspects of electromagnetic theory.
If I understand the position correctly,
your question concerns the source of the charge at a metal surface which by
responding to the presence of the EM wave ensures that the reflectivity of the
metal surface is virtually unity, hence providing waveguide action and related
applications.
If I may restate the basis of your
question, what is the maximum frequency of radiation which is reflected? It is
this parameter rather than light velocity which is important. The solution lies
in the maximum frequency response of the electron gas, which is the plasmon frequency w p and is calculated in a
straightforward way. If light frequency is greater than w p then the electron
gas in the metal can no longer respond and the reflectivity tends to zero. The
problem you are posing is that if the wave is guided by the metal then this
implies that the charge resides on the metal surface. As the wave travels at light velocity, then charge supplied
from outside the system would have to travel at light velocity as well, which is clearly impossible.
The answer is found by considering the
nature of conduction in metals. Here we have a lattice of positively charged
atoms surrounded by a sea of free electrons which can move in response to an electric
field. This response can be very rapid and results in a polarisation of charge
at the surface and through the metal. At frequencies greater than w p the
electron gas cannot respond which is the reason for the transparency of metals
to ultra-violet radiation. However for frequencies used in communications the
electron gas can easily respond to the radiation and reflectivity is unity.
If a poor conductor is used instead of
a metal, i.e. there are no freely conducting electrons, then there is no polarisation,
and as you point out charge cannot enter the system, and there can be no
surface field. Consequently reflection of the radiation will not occur at these
low frequencies and there is no waveguide action.
I hope that these comments provide a
satisfactory explanation.
Yours sincerely,
[signed] M Pepper
cc: Sir
Michael Atiyah - Trinity College [Master]
Mr.
A Weir - Trinity College
Telephone: 0223
337330
August 23, 1993 Dear
Raeto West, I write with reference to your letter of August
19. Your description of the process is correct; as a TEM wave advances so charge
within the conductor is polarised and the disturbance propagates at right
angles to the direction of propagation of the wave .... .... Yours sincerely, M Pepper
The portions of Pepper's letter which strike you as either too erudite for your comprehension or else as drivel, are drivel. Generally, he has copied out irrelevant slabs of material from text books.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2012 8:59 PM
To: forrestb@ix.netcom.com ; bdj10@cam.ac.uk ; kirkmcd@princeton.edu
Subject: Fw: defamation
Dear Professor Kirk T McDonald ,m
The attached comment [AAAA] is a clear case of defamation.
I note that Forrest Bishop
pointed out to you that “The Catt Question” was the only Question, and it had
not changed. You then repeated your defamation, again saying that there was
more than one Question, and that I tried to deceive.
Please supply an apology.
It is curious that very
recently Nobel Prizewinner Brian Josephson bdj10@cam.ac.uk also wrongly said that the
Catt Question had changed over time. However, this did not rate as defamation,
as your case does. He did not say I was trying to deceive. We all make
mistakes, but we do not indulge in persistent defamation.
Ivor Catt
cc Office of the President
Shirley M. Tilghman, President,
[ There was never any action from Shirley
M. Tilghman, President, Princeton University. Sept 2013 ]
1 Nassau Hall
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
A number of interesting insights
arise from the next item.
1.
Someone who was “knighted
for services to physics” would not write drivel.
2.
Although Nigel Cook,
under my web page “Nutter”, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x21n.htm
, Catt managed to forget that McD libelled Catt to a
circulation of 100.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: Ivor Catt
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 10:18 AM
To: Forrest Bishop
; Jonathan Post
Subject: Re: Does this tiptoe towards Theory C
without knowing it?
Extraordinary.
I stumbled on an exchange between Tombe and McDonald. In it McD
said Tombe did not understand anything. Tombe kept asking McD to comment
on “The Catt Question” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
. Having completely forgotten that McD libelled me in
the past and the head of Princeton did nothing about my complaint,
I approached McD and asked him to comment on Cattq, sending a copy to Forrest. Forrest then told me that
there had been dialogue between me and McD in the
past.
Given our relationship and Forrest’s
comments about Facebook, I don’t think I need to get
his permission before putting his comments below on my website.
McD fell into a trap. Since the comments
by Sir Michael Pepper, knighted for services to physics, were drivel except for
one sentence, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm
, McD very reasonably assumed Pepper was commenting
on another Question, not Cattq, and so said Catt was
attempting to deceive, (“Knighted for services to Physics” would not write
irrelevant drivel,) sending the charge to a circulation of 100. Once he was
disabused by me, he should have done something – for instance sent a correction
to the same circulation, but instead I believe he got more
ugly, the details of which I don’t recollect.
Ivor Catt
From: Forrest
Bishop
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 4:41 AM
To: Jonathan
Post
Cc: ivor catt
Subject: Re: Does this tiptoe towards Theory C
without knowing it?
Dear Jonathan,
Thank you for that. Is she anyone who matters?
I can you tell exactly what the connection is, and why it reminded you of Ivor Catt: the author, Hans G. Schantz,
got the idea for his paper from me!
Ivor Catt and myself were
discussing a related matter- Princeton physics Prof. Kirk T McDonald- just this
morning.
Timeline from memory (I have the exact sequence and dates, along with more
details, documented elsewhere):
1. I was invited to contribute to a venerable
old ham radio forum back in about 2010 (?), called AntennaX,
by an admirer of Catt. (David Tombe was also brought
in at some point but I forget the details right now.)
2. I put up a couple posts that the members found interesting.
3. Turns out one Prof. K. T. McDonald of Princeton is
the resident alleged-physics guru at AntennaX. The
others are mostly ham operators who appear to take McDonald's word as reliable.
4. McDonald libels Catt (and Tombe, and myself
by proxy) several times (this is what Ivor and I were
talking about today), calling him a liar in effect. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel
5. I bring up what I call "The Two Pulses Conundrums",
saying that this case is not explained by mainstream physics for several
reasons.
6. McDonald provides a farcical explanation, while his tone continues to
get nastier- so foul and libelous that I was appalled
that Princeton would have anything to do with him.
7. He gets so nasty that the forum starts losing long-time subscribers in
droves, turned off by this development.
8. Tombe and myself get
kicked off the forum. We were claimed to be the cause of the problem (!).
9. The forum owner splits AntennaX into two
parts- one for ham radio, and another for sequestering Prof. McDonald and his
followers (several of whom also libeled Catt and
myself.)
I0. I wrote a paper for the NPA, http://www.worldsci.org/pdf//abstracts/abstracts_6554.pdf
, and
put McDonald's "Two Pulses" explanation in it, right after my
discussion on Superposition..
From the paper you alerted us to I can reconstruct the following:
11. McDonald chewed on the Two Pulses problem for awhile and then
wrote his "destructive" paper http://puhep1.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/destructive.pdf
in 2013-4, failing to cite Catt, myself, or the literature on it that I had aready found and cited (!) in my paper.
12. McDonald is a colleague or acquaintance of Hans G. Schantz. He passed off his theory to Schantz,
who then produced his "puzzling" paper:
"ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The author gratefully acknowledges helpful discussions
with Travis Norton, Kirk T. McDonald..."
The reason the Facebook lady is puzzled is because
the paper, based on McDonald's incoherent "theory", is logically
inconsistent and proposing unknown physics together with unheard of
"observations".
And that's how Catt gets "marketed", as you put it.
Feel free to post this entire exchange on Facebook.
Forrest
--Forrest Bishop
Bishop Cubes (R)
www.bishopcubes.com
============
Institute of Atomic-Scale Engineering
www.iase.cc
============
Electrodynamics of Theory C
www.forrestbishop.4t.com
============
On 7/9/2014 7:12 PM, Jonathan Post wrote:
Someone on Facebook
said that she was puzzled by the paper.
She showed me the link.
I saw the possible connection, but did
not tell you, as I don't want to interfere with the way that you two (Ivor and Forrest) are handling the marketing of your
breakthrough ideas.
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Forrest
Bishop <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
Dear Jonathan,
My, my what a tangled web they weave. How did you happen to come across this
article?
How did you happen to know how exacting your timing would be in sending it to
us?
There is much more to this story...
Forrest
On 7/9/2014 5:11 PM, Jonathan Post wrote:
http://www.e-fermat.org/files/articles/153b46caff3555.pdf
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
“These apparent paradoxes are resolved
upon examination
of the larger context as illustrated in
Figure 1. Two
electromagnetic waves propagating in opposing
directions
with aligned electric fields will have
opposed magnetic fields.
Thus a constructive interference of the
electric component of
the waves requires a destructive
interference of the magnetic
component and vice versa. The electric energy in
a
constructive interference is indeed twice the
electric energy of
the original waves, because all the
original magnetic field
energy transforms to electric energy.
Similarly, the electric
energy vanishes in a destructive interference
because all the
electric energy has become magnetic energy. By
this simple
yet elegant interaction between electric
and magnetic energy,
nature allows both superposition and
conservation of energy
to be upheld. A similar interplay between
electric and
magnetic energy occurs in the superposition of
voltage and
current waves on a transmission line, as
depicted in Figure 1.”
The above is buried in the Schantz article http://www.e-fermat.org/files/articles/153b46caff3555.pdf
None of them can even consider the
possibility that two electromagnetic energies can exist at the same point.
Since the idea that one point has only one voltage gradient and one pagnetic gradient has held to fore for a century and more,
they cannot even consider the idea that two electromagnetic waves travel
through each other at a point. For them, there has to be some sort of
instantaneous transformation. The problem goes deep, because there really is
interaction between two electromagnetic waves travelling through each other,
but not of the kind they have in mind. When two pulses travel through eachother in opposite directions in a transmission line,
there is a sudden physical force between the guiding conductors. They don’t
realise this, I I did not for the first few decades
of my work. This fact points us towards the unification of electromagnetism and
gravity.
They all have “The Rolling Wave” http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0102em.htm
, http://www.ivorcatt.com/2604.htm ,
that changing E causes H and changing H causes E. None of them have noticed
that that breaks down for white light, and only “works” for monochromatic
light! The errors, oversights and omissions in today’s
“Modern Physics~ are at a juvenile level.
Ivor Catt