Dear All,
We are going to have a unique opportunity to learn
about an ***unconventional theory*** of electromagnetism from invited lectures
of two experts in this field, with 50 years of professional experience.
They are Ivor Catt and
David Walton.
Ivor Catt is an electronic engineer with an incredible
intuition, deep theoretical knowledge and imagination, and a wealth of
engineering solutions and inventions, one of which was his pioneering work of
the so called "glitch phenomenon", leading to metastability
and synchronization failures in digital systems. He is also known for his
patents in wafer scale integration and understanding of crosstalk in digital
communications.
David Walton is a physicist (whose first and
doctoral degrees were from Newcastle!) with ample knowledge of electromagnetic
theories, but also with an impressive electronic engineering and IT experience,
in particular providing some remarkable solutions to problems of signal
transmission in high speed digital systems. David also has experience of
setting up electronic companies.
===============================
These lectures will be the focus of our Seminar on
Electromagnetism, which will be on 9th October 2013 (Wednesday), in the CPD
(M413) room, in two periods: 10:00-12:00 (Ivor Catt)
and 14:00-16:00 (David Walton).
===============================
Further details about this event are in the
attached advert.
As I have more details I'll forward them to you.
But, meanwhile, mark the whole day in your diaries and be prepared to listen to
interesting and thought-provoking talks, perhaps puzzling and even
controversial, and be also prepared to ask many questions. This is why I wanted
to invite Ivor and David here for, because otherwise
you could just read a lot of material on Ivor Catt's
websites (just google "Ivor
Catt"), but putting everything in logical order may not be easy (at least
for me!).
With this seminar I am also going to launch a MicroSystems Journal Club, a PhD forum of our uSystems research group, whose main aim is to encourage PhD
students to talk about their research to their peers in an informal way,
thereby reporting on their progress, practicing their presentation skills and
simply discussing their research problems at all stages of their development,
from the stage of problem discovery, to its proper formulation, analysis of
models, methods, CAD tools, and finally to the presentation of results and
drawing conclusions.
Cheers
Alex
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
From: Professor Alex Yakovlev
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 8:54 AM
To: Ivor Catt
; Anthony Wakefield
Subject: RE: Wakefield
Dear Ivor
Our "people in the coffee room" look at the experiment and see
what I have already written to you. The scope shows what is described perfectly
well in the books about transmission lines and coax, like the one I quoted by
Sol Rosenstark.
This book clearly shows that in a predominantly capacitive coax the
propagation of the change voltage (as a result of the effect of the switch
being connected) is with the speed of light. The fact that this happens with
the speed of light is explained by the known (to people) facts that the changes
in the EM (or even gravitational field) propagate with the speed of light.
Why should they deduce anything what happened before this change?
In your coloured picture, the steps labelled with negative time -20, -10
are your imagination, because we cannot see that in the experiment.
The fact that the change propagates in both direction is also known by
people writing about transmission lines. They show these behaviours in lattice
diagrams.
When "people in the coffee room" use these arguments, they
don't mention the idea of a stationary field, and presumably they don't need to
do it because it is not helpful in explaining the transmission line behaviour.
Once again, I am not confident that we have strong facts to put a dent
into the existing methods for transmission line analysis that engineers happily
use. And they see the Wakefield experiments as the confirmation of these
methods, nothing more. What you see there is purely a scientific hypothesis,
but engineers don't want to buy it. They don't want to 'imagine', as this is
what they think physicists should do. Catch 22 ?!
Alex