On a theory of Electromagnetism: theory C

Catt had been solving several problems while addressing the electron / charge issue in the Catt question. He and his co workers had moved to a transmission line model first promoted by Heaviside, because a charge moving at the speed of light was untenable. They dropped charge in favour of a signal wave that induced charge as a current.

They had a way to go yet , but they were building a new paradigm one piece at a time.

Catt now hurriedly drafts out his theory
It is an advance on Heavisides Theory as recorded. Catt's research could not turn up much to support Heaviside deriving this view, because Heaviside was excised from the electrical community, and his work unpublished, remaining scattered in his apartment in England.


Catt confirms his advance on Heaviside. But how had he come to this radical conclusion?
Catt begins an exegesis on his theory, which due to induction from the energy current which Walton described as crosstalk, was hurriedly formulated as above. Later he publishes his theory of Elrctromagnetism.

Catt on the way to his theory bypasses Magnetism. His brief mention of Magnetic domains is a cursory nod in that direction. His main depiction centres on the Poynting Vector which is normal to a "wedge" of energy current, very thin and propagating by wave guides.

Thus he relies on the work of his colleagues and classical theory to explain his own. He is therefore offering a revised theory with a different emphasis on what is fundamental. He has no clue at this stage how untenable this is, even though Lago had pointed this out. Catt is still in the process of working through the ramifications of their discovery. Soon everything has to change, including the Electron.

Clearly now out of his depth, and not getting collaborative support until he forms an Alliance with Forrest Bishop. He struggles on to work out the ramifications more fully, while documenting how the scientific establishment actually works.

How had he come to obviate charge, and thus current? His reliance on the Poynting Vector as a thin wedge, was a necessary device to replace charge, and thn current, but he had to define this as a primitive to proceed. This meant that the electron was now radically in question. If he got rid of the particle all he had remaining was a " wave" concept, the other part of the wave particle duality.

This wedge somehow had to be the wave , and it had to be a step wave.

Laying out some principles he attempted to construct Electromagnetism from the basis of Theory C, but he would not venture into the magnetic domain.

It has long been a desire to construct electromagnetism on the behaviour of electricity alone, but magnetism stubbornly refuses to be suborned in this way! The Poynting Vector disguises a fundamental difficulty in theory hitherto: the duality between electro statics and Magnetostatics.

One thing falls naturally from Catts primitives: there are no " statics"! To take Theory C to its fullest expression one must look at Electrodynamics and Magneto dynamics

Justification. In around 1965, I created a ring made up of one high speed (1.35nsec) inverting ECL logic gate, some fat coaxial cable, and what was called a "trombone". The trombone was a piece of coaxial "cable" about half a metre long whose length could be varied, like a trombone. Documentation discussed vswr, but from our point of view the characteristic impedance down the trombone is very cosistent. This is because the Zo of a coaxial cable depends on the ratio of the two radii involved. Thus, a thick section can slide over a thinner section. Zo is very consistent if there is good contact at the end of the thicker section where it connects, and hands over to, the thinner section. A single step travelled round the ring, inverting each time it reached the logic gate. The delay through the whole ring was about 10 nsec, so the period of the square wave was 20 nsec., with a 50% duty cycle, or 1 to 1 mark-space ratio. I looked at the resulting waveform on a Tektronix 661 Sampling Oscilloscope with a 4S1(100psec) or 4S2 plug-in. As I changed the length of the trombone, the frequency of the square wave varied to suit. I studied, and also opened up and carefully studied the sampling system of the sampling scope. It was clear that what I was seeing was real. I was watching a voltage step travelling unchanged down the cable. It was then inverted by the logic gate, and its inverse sent down the cable. The sequence was then repeated. This was the seminal experiment which convinced me of the physical reality of the TEM Wave. Heaviside called it "Energy Current". Using a broad application of Occam's Razor, it then behoves me to construct as much as I can of the perceived physical universe out of such TEM Waves, or "Energy Current". In the November 1979 and November 1980 issues of "Wireless World", my co-author Dr. D. S. Walton replied to Professor Bell's August 1979 article; "No radio without displacement current", which sought to contradict our December 1978 and March 1979 articles on Displacement Current. Walton is here . Bell's claim that he had not read our articles was false. The solution to the conundrum, that Bell claims he was not replying in August 1979 to the Catt article of December 1978, is that the way the Establishment replies to a new theory is to restate the old theory, and so his claim arises out of semantic ambiguity. Bell refused to give me permission to republish his article in my book "Death of Electric Current", see p60. [nov79] " …. Aristotelians believed that a force was necessary to keep bodies in motion and that, in the absence of this force, the motion would cease….. air, displaced from ahead of the spear, rushed to the rear and generated the requisite force – the theory was saved. …. " – Walton. Compare with Kip ; " …. E gives rise to a similar time and space variation of H (but at right angles to E) and that this H variation acts back to cause the postulated variation of E. Thus, once such a wave is initiated, it is self-propagating." A fuller version of Walton is as follows; " …. Aristotelians believed that a force was necessary to keep bodies in motion and that, in the absence of this force, the motion would cease. This theory led them into certain difficulties. For instance a spear, once thrown, appeared to continue to move without a force being present. The philosophers rose to this challenge magnificently with the theory that air, displaced from ahead of the sphere, rushed to the rear and generated the requisite force – the theory was saved. Unfortunately they missed the simple point first noted by Newton, that it is in the nature of a moving body to continue to move. "In the same way I fear that Maxwell invented a complex explanation for a very simple phenomenon, i.e. that electromagnetic radiation, or energy current, moves at the speed of light – and that's all. No mechanism invoking E producing H and H, in return, producing E is required." – Walton Had the air displaced from the front of the body merely proceeded to suck forward the body which displaced it, the explanation would appear (more) patently absurd. This is why the relative phases of E and H in a TEM Wave have to be suppressed, or at least confused, so that few lecturers are sure. The truth is that E and H are in phase with each other, making it very difficult to cope with the idea that they cause each other. If they did, they would surely be out of phase with each other. However, even were they out of phase, as some vaguely believe, "Mathverse" indicates that problems would remain, because a complete cycle is 360 degrees, not 180. The Answer to The Ultimate Question Of Life, the Universe and Everything is a theoretical solution in Douglas Adams' book series The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The "Answer" is simply "42". In the story, the Answer to the Ultimate Question about Life, the Universe, and Everything is produced using the hypercomputer Deep Thought. It generated the Answer after a very long computation time (7.5 million years) Jackson is the leading text book used in American universities. J D Jackson, "Classical Electrodynamics", pub. Wiley 1962/1975, p341; "… we take note of a degenerate or special type of solution, called the …. TEM wave. …. axial wave number …. ". Then follows some bizarre mathematics. His feeling is that it is a great shame that the final destination of such complex, ingenious mathematical manipulation is so simple . Why did these gents never wonder why all the clever stuff led to so little? They ignore my discovery that the same equations can be mathematically derived from two thick short planks moving forward side by side at constant velocity – a similar situation with little content, and minimal legitimate mathematical manipulation. It is near impossible to explain the following point by considering Maxwell's Equations as usually written, they are made to be so complex. However, buried in the complexity of one of them is the assertion that electric flux terminates on electric charge – Gauss's Law. Before Wikipedia proceeds to make a banquet rather than merely a meal of it, it gives quite a clear statement of the law; In physics and mathematical analysis, Gauss's law is the electrostatic application of the generalized Gauss's theorem giving the equivalence relation between any flux, e.g. of liquids, electric or gravitational, flowing out of any closed surface and the result of inner sources and sinks, such as electric charges or masses enclosed within the closed surface. Try to grasp that this means that if a region has a varying electric field, it must contain electric charge. Perhaps the clearest example is that of a conducting sphere containing electric charge. According to Gauss's Law, electric flux must be emitted from that sphere. The amount of flux is equal to the amount of charge on the sphere. Is the electric flux an expression of, or emanation from, the electric charge, or vice versa? In the case of a plateau, the slope at its edge is only an expression of the amount of earth in each region. The slope does not have another physical content compared with the plateau. They are both made of earth. In particular, the slope merely represents a diminishing amount of earth. Electric charge represents diminishing flux density. Does it represent more than that? It certainly represents a problem, see “ The Catt Question “. Note that if electric charge lacked mass, "The Catt Question" would cease to be a problem. Note that dE/dx is never claimed to have mass, yet the electric charge that it is thought to represent does. The slope of a hill does not exist. Only the plateau above exists. They are both made up of the same material. Actually, not even the plateau exists. All that exists is earth. It would be wrong to attribute different physical nature to material merely because it made up a slope rather than a plateau. Here are some quotations. Although a cloud cannot exist without edges, the edges of a cloud do not exist. They have no width, volume, or materiality. However, the edges of a cloud can be drawn. Their shapes can be manipulated graphically and mathematically. The same is true of the so-called ‘electric current’. Half of the primitives in electromagnetic theory disappear, and it ceases to be a dualistic theory. Rho [charge density] and J [electric current] disappear, becoming merely the physically non-existent results of the mathematical manipulation of E and H Before the spring cleaning implicit in "Theory C", electromagnetic theory remains the only dualistic theory, out of kilter when compared with other 19th and 20th century theories. Such spring cleaning is requested by Occam's Razor. The Single Velocity Universe Now we move to the next matter, the Single Velocity Universe. Considerations of energy conservation lead to the conclusion that the ratio of E to H is controlled by the permittivity and permeability of the space traversed. Also, the velocity of propagation of a TEM Wave is controlled by the permittivity and permeability of the space traversed. It follows that, if everything is composed of TEM Waves, then everything must travel at this velocity, c, 300,000. The conundrum that many things, almost all things, seem to travel slower is dealt with by saying such things travel on an eccentric path. See pp247 , 248 etc. Also see attempts to design trapped Energy Currents, at The electron and The Crystal. Since I am convinced that I saw the TEM Wave, "The Heaviside Signal" "slab of energy current" version, not "The Rolling Wave" version, then Occam's Razor requires that I construct as much as possible of the known physical reality out of it. Now the TEM Wave is extremely versatile. Add to this the fact that I have no comprehension of the so-called "particle", because it has never been defined to my satisfaction, I am even more pressed to construct out of the TEM Wave, including trying to construct something which resembles the particle, as far as one can discern what "the particle" is thought to be. This effort is at The electron and The Crystal. . Even e=mc2 seems to some out of the TEM Wave in classical electromagnetism; see my web page; "It follows that energy W = mc2. This formula, usually written e=mc2, is claimed for Poincare and later for Einstein. Here it is derived from the TEM wave in a transmission line, using only classical electromagnetic theory (Theory N)."

It is to be noted that magnetic effects like the Hall effect are inherent in the primitive, but not addressed directly to explain if they are really empirically distinct in the new paradigm. Some basi magnetic research needs to be done using theory C . Theory H propounded by Eric Dollard is richly littered with experimental evidence in both electric and magnetic modes as well as electromagnetic mode.

The Poynting Vector propagation in Theory C is not fully addressed, although it is only guided by wires , otherwise it is free to propagate through space. How it propagates through space is not fully addressed, only the " rolling Wave" explanation is denied as a falsehood.

These lacks in Theory C are due to its lack of a proper description of magneto dynamics.


Catt begins the task of investigating magneto dynamics by showing Faradays Induction Law is in Error as presented.

This second piece on induction takes the necessary magnetic analysis a stage further, implying crosstalk was mistaken for induced current by changing magnetic field.


It is useful to pause and note how quickly in presentation we have gone from a particle description of electricity to a wave description . Catt removes the charge, the current and the electron. On what grounds?
First on a mistaken relativity argument, which is countered by McEwan and Josephon, and then

The only grounds is the signal behaviour in a transmission line!

In reality it took Catt several years to come to this groundbreaking conclusion. But he found Heaviside had reached almost this stage before him. Regardless of the systems established to describe electric and magnetic behaviour Catt only has to explain the observable output from a capacitor. That output was a step pulse at half the capacitor voltage for twice as long as the incident pulse! How?

In reaching his explanation Catt has to reflect the incident pulse in the capacitor. The capacitor has an apparent potential of 2 times the incident potential, and no apparent magnetic field. This is what needs to be demonstrated in measurement, for it is from this that Cattdraws the conclusion that a reflection of a pulse occurs; that this reflection is lossless; that the Poynting vector only reverses the magnetic field in this reflection, and thus doubles the electric field; that this doubling is illusory as demonstrated by the capacitor output.

Catt explains how a battery drives a load, but when it drives s capacitor or a transmission line, where the voltage appears to double inside the capacitor and magnetic fields are set to zero.

Of course demonstrating this experimental evidence requires some skill. It is also extremely naive to think that in demonstrating it science would be immediately changed. Science, like any other group or collaborative effort has a self interest. What was in it for science.?

Catt figured out a way to demonstrate his theory, making a curious prediction.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s