19
May 2015
After
being silenced for 30 years, "The Catt Question" was rubbished in a peer reviewed journal in
2012 in an article entitled "Catt's Anomaly"
. Here are my comments on the
article. The last time Catt’s own writing was accepted in peer reviewed
journals was in 1987 . However, these IEEE entries in 1983 and 1987 were only
short notes. The last substantial article by Catt to get past peer review (into an IEEE
journal, or into any other peer reviewed journal) was in 1967, half a century
ago. No writing by Catt has ever got past peer review in the second largest
organisation, the London IEE/IET. Chris Spargo has
been identified by the IEE as a rising star in our field, winning their prizes
etc.
To Professor Alex Yakovlev and Chris Spargo,
Newcastle University. Following the four hour Catt/Walton
seminar at the university, which Professor Yakovlev
organised and chaired, and which they both attended.
Dear
Chris, Alex,
You must see that
it would be a shame if I had to trawl through past emails and perhaps came to
the wrong conclusion. It would surely be better for us all if you confirmed
what I think your positions are, or that you correct me.
"Please would
Alex comment as to whether there is a fatal flaw in classical
electromagnetism?"
Is the following 1,
2, 3 the correct summary of Chris's position;
1 There is no
fundamental flaw in classical electromagnetism, which includes the TEM Wave.
2 If the Severn
Bore travels upstream at 10 fps, some water must travel at the full 10 fps. (Actually, we are
referring to an idealised version of the TEM Bore; smooth, flat water, then a
sudden step, and behind the step, higher smooth, flat water)
3 If a TEM step
guided by two conductors travels at the speed of light, no charge has to travel
at the speed of light. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm .
If, as I predict,
"Modern Physics", including classical electromagnetism, implodes in,
say, 2050, then what you say in 2015 will be very interesting during the
inquest. You have had four hours of lecture from Dave Walton and me, and Chris
has also had two hours on Skype with me. If, after all that, we have failed to
convince you, then my close colleagues and I will know that it will be
impossible at the present time to convince any expert in the world that there
are fundamental flaws at the core of today's "Modern Physics".
I shall put your
answers on the www, which the British Library says they will preserve.
I think that my research shows that critical analysis only operates within the confines of the reigning paradigm. If such a paradigm is challenged, then critical analysis is no longer used. This result will shine valuable light on the transition from Phlogiston to oxidation, or from caloric to the kinetic theory of heat. Note that no mathematics was used in those last two transitions.
Not surprisingly,
the survival instinct takes precedence over critical analysis.
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
After not
appearing in any peer reviewed journal for 30 years, Catt was rubbished in a
peer reviewed journal in 2012 in an article called "Catt's Anomaly"
. The article described Catt as “an amateur scientist”. Since Catt had not
existed in the “peer reviewed community” for 30 years, why did he have to be
attacked?
Ivor Catt May 2015
The IEE never
allowed Catt to publish on "Catt
Spiral" , although while the project was progressing, a member of the
IEE’s staff, Mr. Dettmer, did publish something on
it.
In May 2015 the
Wikipedia article on “Ivor Catt” contained the
following; “Ivor Catt (born
1935) is a British electronics engineer known
principally for his alternative theories of electromagnetism.
He received a B.A. degree from Cambridge University, and has won two major
product awards for his innovative computer chip designs, including the Electronic Design
magazine's "best product of the year" award on 26 October 1989, after
£16 million funding.”
April 13, 2015
” Dear Ivor,
It is interesting
that there are multiple views on this. Some day, I hope we may all get to the
bottom of this and all agree on it!
....
‘’’’
Best regards,
Chris”
The above is Chris Spargo writing on "The Catt Question".
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm I think we can learn a lot from him.
A very small number
of people including me believe that "The Catt Question" points to one
of the biggest advances in the history of science, called "Theory C".
It is not on the scale of Galileo or Newton's Laws of Motion, but it takes its
place at the level of the disappearance of Phlogiston and of Caloric. "The
Catt Question" is only a Question about classical electromagnetism. It is
not a theory. It is not "Theory C".
It would be helpful
if Dave Walton and Forrest Bishop confirmed that that the above is also their
own view.
The big advance,
called "Theory C", states;
"When a
battery is connected to a lamp by two wires and the lamp lights, electric
current is not involved."
"Theory
C" does not state than the electron does not exist, or that electricity
does not exist. It also does not state that they do exist.
At http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/1_3.htm , Catty attempted to construct an electron, and
failed.
The belief that the
work of Catty and his colleagues is merely "business as usual" with
merely a little tweaking leads to much misunderstanding, as indicated by what
Chris has written, above.
" I hope we may all
get to the bottom of this and all agree on it! - CS " written about those who held to phlogiston theory and
those who held to oxidation theory would be bizarre, but it happened, where a
combination of the two theories was attempted.
Ivor Catt 25 May
2015
|
12:34 PM (1 hour ago)
|
|
||
|
||||
Ivor
Please feel free to forward this mail to others who may be concerned.
1. I am completely convinced that there is a fundamental problem with Maxwellian electrodynamics as identified most clearly in
the 'Catt Question' and similar. The problem is that, when a TEM step is
propagating along a two conductor transmission line, there is no mechanism
whereby the charge can flow at sufficient speed (ie
at the velocity of light) in order to provide the additional charge needed to
account for the electric field.
2. There is an additional problem with Maxwell, in that vacuum must
contain a polarisable medium (ether?) in order to account for the phenomenon of
capacitance and displacement current.
3. I believe a new theory is required in which electromagnetic energy is
taken as the fundamental quantity and so-called static electric and magnetic
fields are constructed from it.
4. In a simple circuit energy flows from the
source of EMF to the load by travelling through the space between the
conductors, (see Poynting Vector). In my view
it is not necessary, nor is it helpful to discuss the reality or otherwise of
the current in the wires.
I trust this is helpful to all concerned.
Kind regards .................... Dave
Questions for Professor Alex Yakovlev ; Catt
and Classical Electromagnetism
29 May 2015
Here are cases where information about physical reality, which
is what proper electromagnetic theory is about, is lost when something physical
is communicated mathematically. Causality is lost, because the = sign is used
where it should be an arrow, as in chemistry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday's_law_of_induction
"This
induction was due to the change in magnetic flux that occurred when the battery was connected
and disconnected."
"When the flux
changes—because B changes,
or because the wire loop is moved or deformed, or both—Faraday's law of
induction says that the wire loop acquires an EMF, 
,
defined as the energy available from a unit charge that has travelled once
around the wire loopp
The
above essential feature of Faraday's Law is then lost in the Wikipedia article
when an attempt is made to state his law mathematically.
V
= - dΦ/dt
,
This
move from English to Mathsspeak is also a serious loss
when we come to Heaviside's greatest contribution, "We reverse this .... ". He says the current does not cause the field - the
field caused the current. This concept, of reversing causality, is excluded
from mathematics. This is a concept which I regard as Heaviside's greatest
contribution to electromagnetic theory, and it is not stated mathematically.
Theoretical Physicist (= mathematical physicist) and Nobel Prizewinner
Brian Josephson, writing to me, dismissed Heaviside's "We reverse this
.... " as merely "a matter of opinion".
Which causes which is merely "a matter of opinion!!!
At qanother time Josephson wrote; "Follow the
maths".
Chris
Spargo recently followed John Dore's persistent
refrain, that classical theory produced so many practical successes that it
must be correct, and for both of them Catt needs to produce practical successes
based on his theory. I thought that this was a weakness in my position, that I
was only theoretical. Today I realised, at last, that this is a corruption of
history. The reason why I developed new insights was that, in Motorola in the
1960s, I had to put together the fastest logic, and would fail using classical
theory. To succeed, I had to develop new insights. The same happened when
Sinclair set up a company to develop "Catt Spiral". I explained to
Mike Brent how he could (as he successfully did) deliver the 5v supply across
the whole WSI wafer using the concept of Energy Current.
Another
example of the corruption of history was when I read that Quantum Electrodynamics
gave us the integrated circuit, which got us to the moon. I was in Motorola
when integrated circuits were first developed, and there was no mention of
quantum electrodynamics. Thus, past successes using novel theory or at least
(Quantum) not using established theory are being claimed for Establishment
theory.
Ivor Catt 29 May 2015
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
5
June 2015
The Clarendon Guru who moved away
Dear
Chris,
In reply to your
question "Do you know who CWPP is?"
Dr. John Roche
refuses to tell me who his friend CWPP at the Clarendon, expert on
electromagnetic theory, is. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x2bg.pdf Roche's
loyalty to his friend takes precedence over his loyalty to science. This is
remarkable, since Roche was very brave when in the public interest he went
after Opus Dei even though he had lost 15 years as a member of
it. http://www.odan.org/media_roche.htm . I went
through the staff at the Clarendon, and could not find CWPP. Once Roche emailed
to me that I was a top expert in electromagnetic theory.
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x33r.htm
I am very unhappy
that it took me two days to stumble on this email question of yours. Krystof, the son of my partner Liba,
moved me to gmail, and I have real trouble dealing
with my emails now, and might miss some, an example being your question about
CWPP.
My research moves
from electromagnetic theory to the Politics of
Knowledge. http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/w4rlectu.htm
. Note that that has occupied me for decades. My lecture was in 1996, 20
years ago, when I had already been suppressed for decades, and so was
researching into why this was happening..
Generally, my work
hits a brick wall. This block is virtually 100%, but not quite. For instance,
you found an IEEE 2012 article "Catt's Anomaly".
http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf . This seemed to
undermine my much simpler story, that the IEEE had blocked me for 50 years ever
since my big IEEE 1967 article. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm
. This story, or behavioural model, was already tainted by the two very
short pieces of mine in the IEEE in 1983 and
1987. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x22k1.pdf .
However, they have all been ignored. Alex Yakovlev
cited Rosenstark's book over Tektronix leading to
Wakefield, over a double length pulse coming out of a long thin charged
capacitor. Over crosstalk, Rosenstark emailed me to
say he wished he had read my 1967 paper before he wrote his book. (My article
undermined what he wrote on crosstalk.) This leads to the second stage, that if
something is published in a peer reviewed journal it is not read anyway. Rosenstark did not read Catt. In around 1980, the editor of
one of the top peer reviewed journals told me he estimated that on average, a
peer reviewed article is read four times, and 1.5 times if it was mathematical.
This was also stated by another editor. (The purpose of publishing in a peer
reviewed journal is career advance, not scientific communication. Today, the
number of peer reviewed journals has got out of hand, and the number of
articles, many more than in 1980.) Thus, when an "expert" says he
does not have to read an article published in a non-peer reviewed journal, this
does not mean that he reads peer reviewed journals. Today, no professor or text
book writer in the world knows the content of my very important 1967 article
(praised by Rosenstark after I pointed it out to him)
or my 1980s IEEE articles, cited above..
I don't think Rosenstark knows that when a long thin capacitor is
discharged, it produces a pulse twice the length of the capacitor, although
Tektronix published this in 1963..http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x212.pdf
. It is not in his book; "Transmission lines in computer
engineering." His mention of double length on page 51 was not relevant, as
can be seen from his emails to me. Yet Alex cites Rosenstark
when he hints that with Wakefield I have nothing new, as you do too. He thinks
my work is in Rosenstark.
The tiny handful of people in the whole worldwho
communicate at all have to be congratulated. They comprise virtually no
one but you, Chris Spargo, Alex Yakovlev,
John Roche, the two authors of http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x54c.pdf and virtually
no one else. At the crucial core of electromagnetic theory, which is at the
centre of science, is virtually a void. Some people get involved with me, but
after a few years they drift away (when nothing seems to happen). This led me
to publish "Where are they?" http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x256.pdf . Forrest Bishop agrees with me that there is no
one there. Your discovery of http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x256.pdf while on Skype
with me tends to undermine this clear, simple statement, which however remains
true.
I have told you
that my target is the inquest in 2050 into what went wrong, after "Modern
Physics" has imploded, as surely it must. The fatal flaws at its core will
surely not be covered up for ever, although I am not
certain of this. As the funding for science increases, the defence of reigning
paradigms strengthens.
Ivor Catt