Addendum. 11 August 2016

I refer to;

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 1:25 PM

Harry

PS The weakness in Ivor's theory should be exposed in an experiment where a charged transmission line is connected to an identical uncharged line. Lets say both are 18 feet as in Wakefield. Then close switches that send the signal into the uncharged line. Measure the signals in both lines and then determine how the voltage drops to half of the voltage of the charged line in both of the lines in the steady state. David, this is the discharge of a capacitor into a similar one that is uncharged. Theory says you lose half the energy, since the voltage in both drops to half the original value. Attack this problem as it is a real weak spot in the Catt theory. - HR

If the lines are lossless, the voltage does not drop to half. A half amplitude pulse 36 feet long reciprocates from end to end forever.

If however there is loss, for instance resistance in the conductors, half the energy is lost in heating the conductors.

The case of resistive conductors is interesting, and the plot thickens. If, following the proof from the Wakefield Experiment, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf , that a “steady charged capacitor” has energy current of equal amplitude travelling in opposite directions, then the total “current” in the conductors is zero and there are no more i²r resistive losses. Thus, the stable state is when equal amounts of energy travel in both directions. In the above Ricker case, initially this is not the case, so there are losses – and also some dispersion, which leads to the 36 feet reciprocating pulse spreading out to longer, ending up 36 feet long and filling the 36 feet in both directions.

Ivor Catt

Discuss the lossless case.

This is more interesting than I thought at the time. Once the other 18 feet is connected, a 36 feet half sized pulse reciprocates from end to end. Sometimes the energy travelling to the right overlaps the energy travelling to the left, so we see the full voltage. Sometimes, only one TEM wave is present, travelling in one direction. We then have energy iun the electrostatic case, and an equal amount of energy in the electromagnetic case. The energy i8s conserved – sometimes as half electric energy and half magnetic energy. At other points, since the energy is travelling in both directions, we only see the voltage, and don’t see the magnetic field, which cancels. There is no steady state .

Ivor Catt 11 August 2016

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

From: HARRY RICKER

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 5:47 PM

To: David Tombe ; Malcolm Davidson ; Bill Lucas ; ROGER ANDERTON

Cc: Al McDowell etc.

Subject: Re: philosophy of science

David,

Obviously charge doesn't travel at the speed of light so the idea that electrons carry electricity is obviously useless. All Ivor does is borrow some ideas from mainstream and make some modifications. These are however, confirmed in empirical experiments so he has a claim to a better theory in that respect. The case I discussed can not be explained in the Catt theory as I far as I know. It would be good if someone actually tried that rather than doing the Wakefield experiment. I don't think the argument as to what guides the waves is explained in any theory. The idea that there is no current is of course bizarre. I think the argument is that there is no wholesale charge movement involved in current. The obvious problem with that idea is that power is current times voltage, but how do you define the voltage of an electron. You can't. So the idea that moving charge is electricity is silly, because you can not define a voltage for an electron. You can however define the power in the Catt concept of a TEM wave. That is its utility. As I pointed out the flaw is that it can not properly predict what happens when a charged capacitor discharges into another identical uncharged one. If any experiments are needed it is to measure what happens when this is done. See http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22k1.pdf

Harry

The idea that there is no phlogiston is of course bizarre. – Harry Notricker, 1850

The idea that there is no caloric is of course bizarre. – Harry Notricker, 1850

“All Ivor does is borrow some ideas from mainstream and make some modifications.” – Ricker.

Anything allegedly new in Catt’s work is not new, but merely bizarre.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2013 1:25 PM

If the lines are lossless, the voltage does not drop to half. A half amplitude pulse 36 feet long reciprocates from end to end forever.

If however there is loss, for instance resistance in the conductors, half the energy is lost in heating the conductors.

The case of resistive conductors is interesting, and the plot thickens. If, following the proof from the Wakefield Experiment, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x343.pdf , that a “steady charged capacitor” has energy current of equal amplitude travelling in opposite directions, then the total “current” in the conductors is zero and there are no more i²r resistive losses. Thus, the stable state is when equal amounts of energy travel in both directions. In the above Ricker case, initially this is not the case, so there are losses – and also some dispersion, which leads to the 36 feet reciprocating pulse spreading out to longer, ending up 72 feet long and filling the 36 feet in both directions.

Ivor Catt

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

From: HARRY RICKER

Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2014 3:55 PM

To: Ivor Catt ; ROGER ANDERTON ; Forrest Bishop ; Thierry ; Bill Lucas

Subject: Re: comprehension

Ivor, As usual you tend to distort in your perceptions of what others say. You then perpetuate that distortion by publishing erroneous material such as the link in your mail which is erroneous in a number of specific statements about me which are factually incorrect. I have asked you to stop such incorrect statements but you persist. So I have to conclude that you are mentally ill. I continue to recommend that you seek treatment. That is because your perceptions of the world do not reflect actual reality, and you perpetuate fantasies of your imagination that you think are actual realities.

Harry

On Tuesday, January 7, 2014 12:57 PM, Ivor Catt <icatt@btinternet.com> wrote:

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x417.htm

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I cannot find the Ricker email saying Catt has nothing new, but this, below, is close; “All I see Ivor as doing, is returning to the Maxwellian idea of charge as developed by Faraday's experiments.”

Somewhere else he says Catt has “nothing new”, it is all in text books on “transmission line theory”.

From: Ivor Catt

Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2014 1:11 PM

To: HARRY RICKER ; David Tombe ; Forrest Bishop

Cc: Malcolm Davidson ; Franklin Hu ; Roger Rydin ; 'PAL Asija' ; 'Pal Asija' ; 'Glenn A. Baxter, P.E.' ; cole@nevis.columbia.edu ; dgsasso@alice.it ; odomann@yahoo.com ; pnoble@vermontel.net ; the.volks@comcast.net ; david@dehilster.com ; npercival@snet.net ; almcd999@earthlink.net ; don@shoestringscience.com ; gravity@extinctionshift.com ; ian.cowan@nsai.ie ; bill.lucas001@gmail.com ; jarybczyk@verizon.net ; cowani@eircom.net ; baugher.3@wright.edu ; smalik@uri.edu ; hatchronald@johndeere.com ; peterkohut@seznam.cz ; thenarmis@gmail.com ; institute@k1man.com ; npa-relativity@googlegroups.com ; echoshack@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Summary of the Entire Problem

Harry,

You will appreciate that in the current deluge of emails I don’t read them all.

I have only just seen this one.

I am sure you will not produce evidence that “ the Maxwellian view, it is the field that produces the charge “ - HR. This would mean that what I have always called Heaviside’s greatest contribution had a partial predecessor.

http://www.ivorcatt.org/icz014.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x267.pdf

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/z014.htm

The answer lies hidden in Heaviside's magnificent, regal statement, "We reverse this." In his Electrical Papers, vol. 1, 1892, page 438, Heaviside wrote;

Now, in Maxwell's theory there is the potential energy of the displacement produced in the dielectric parts by the electric force, and there is the kinetic or magnetic energy of the magnetic force in all parts of the field, including the conducting parts. They are supposed to be set up by the current in the wire. We reverse this; the current in the wire is set up by the energy transmitted through the medium around it….

.Ivor Catt

From: HARRY RICKER

Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 8:40 PM

To: David Tombe ; Ivor Catt ; Forrest Bishop

Subject: Re: Summary of the Entire Problem

David,

Well I will concede that you have given a good answer. I don't think it is for me to answer what others have said or are trying to argue. I have said that I think the discourse they are advocating is not adaquate and that it needs to be improved. Having said that, I think that there is a strong merit to the general thrust of the argument that is being presented by them. What we need to do is to work on how to identify the strong points of that approach and try to fix or eliminate the weaknesses. The difficulty, as I see it, is that if you say that charge is the primitive object that produces the field, you run into a series of difficulties, all of which are obstacles to the modern understanding of physics. This is the result in my opinion of moving away from the Maxwellian ideas regarding charge as being a boundary effect of the field. In other words, as I see EM theory from the Maxwellian view, it is the field that produces the charge and the modern textbooks have reversed that Maxwellian understanding, which was based upon Faraday's work. All I see Ivor as doing, is returning to the Maxwellian idea of charge as developed by Faraday's experiments. But that is not explicitly stated by Ivor and he will probably criticize me for saying this.

Harry