I was wrong. Neither Heaviside, not anyone else, proposed “The Heaviside Signal” until Catt did 100 years later.

Dave,
This helps very much. Your reaction is to agree that I was wrong to
attribute the model so well described by Walton in
http://www.ivorcatt.org/99mdwalt.htm
However, as I said in my email, there is more to this.
Did Heaviside promote/discuss "The Heaviside Signal" better elsewhere? I
feel certain that he did not. Did anyone other than Catt/Walton/Davidson
ever discuss it?
Did anyone other than Catt ever draw a figure implying "The Heaviside
Signal", like Figure 5 http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/1_2.htm ? Note that iam
there is no sign of "the curl of E".
Ivor


-----Original Message----- in m: Dave Walton
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2012 5:15 PM
To: Ivor Catt
Subject: Re: heaviside signal

Hello Ivor

I have read the Heaviside document you sent and I am inclined to agree that
Heaviside was
not thinking clearly about the energy 'slab' but was still following Maxwell
in seeing internal
causality in the signal.

Hope this helps.

Kind regards ...................... Dave

On 6 Oct 2012 at 19:48, Ivor Catt wrote:

> Malcolm, Dave, Mike,
>
> I am now suggesting that before Catt, Walton, Davidson, nobody
> including Heaviside came up with "The Heaviside Signal"
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2604.htm
>
> Figure 5 in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/1_2.htm
>
>
> I suggest that nobody else has described "The Heaviside Signal",
> and nobody except Catt has ever "published" a diagram like Figure
> 5. I now propose that when I thought that in
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2a3.pdf Heaviside was describing "The
> Heaviside Signal", I was wrong. The "description" is too
> confused. "But it is not e itself, bit its curl, .... , that is the
> real source of the waves .... " shows that he failed to divest
> himself of the idea that changing E causes H and changing H causes E.
> His use of the word "slab" is suggestive of "The Heaviside
> Signal", but not convincing.
>
> I very much need your comments.
>
> Ivor Catt