On a theory of Electromagnetism

Ivor Catt seeking to advance Electromagnetc theory, was reduced to publishing the Catt Anomally.


The consequence of the Catt question prior to this was a division between some theoreticians revealing the physico chemical description of matter and the electromagnetic wave description. Each group of scientist pays scant attention to the others use of a common model.

Catt poses the question: where does the charge on the bottom rail come from? In so doing he leaves to one side the equally valid questions: where does the transverse Electromagnetic wave come from? Where is the Longitudinal wave in the analysis? What precisely are voltage, resistance and current? What is a battery? What is an electromotive force and what is a magneto motive force? And importantly, what is electric and magnetic induction? .

A charge is what precisely? And a charged rod or surface differs in what way from a magnetised rod or surface?

Catt then turns sociological commentator, revealing the evident hypocrisy and statecraft of power groups, even in the propaganda driven sciences.

In the course of his enquiry he receives 2 replies and further communication attempting to unify what first was at odds.

Meantime Lynch expresses his view

IEE Science, Education and Technology IEE The history of electrical engineering 26th Weekend Meeting 10-12 July 1998 University of East Anglia DIGEST OF PAPERS PRESENTED Organised by Professional Group D7 (History of technology) HEE/26 LIST OF CONTENTS Introduction (Dr Colin Hempstead and Mr Johannes Hock) 1 Inventiveness and the thought processes of the engineer: Mr Jack Bridge 2 A difficulty in electromagnetic theory Dr Arnold Lynch and Mr Ivor Catt 3 4 …. 12 …. …. P2/1 A DIFFICULTY IN ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY by Arnold Lynch and Ivor Catt We seem to have two different systems of electrical theory almost but not quite independent of each other. The difficulty has existed for more than a hundred years but appeared unimportant until the last twenty years or so. …. …. …. P2/2 Now we describe a problem which combines the two types of theory and shows the difficulty mentioned in the title of this paper. It arose about twenty years ago when fast-operating silicon chips were connected to one another. We idealise the problem slightly. Imagine a coaxial transmission line terminated by a matched load at the far end; and for simplicity let it be evacuated, and of very low resistance. Apply a step voltage to its input; a wave travels along it with the velocity of waves in free space. So after a time a current begins to flow in the terminating load; that is, electrons start to move through it. The problem is – where did they come from? Not from the input, because electrons have finite mass and so they cannot travel at the velocity of waves in free space. (Remember that we are considering a step voltage, not an alternating one.) One of us sent the problem to various people who might have been expected to provide an answer, and the responses were mainly of two kinds (ref. 1): (1) that the wave causes radial movements in the line as it passes over them, and that electrons displaced in this way at the far end make up the current; or (2) that electrons move along the line, with velocity less than the wave, but push other electrons on in front of them, keeping pace with the wave. This problem was mentioned in the Institution's Wheatstone Lecture last December. The lecturer said that electrons in a metal travel only slowly but that they can transmit a fast electromagnetic wave by "nudging" their neighbours ("nudging" was his word for it). Our comments on this are: each atom in a metal contributes a few free electrons, so there are rather more electrons than atoms and therefore they are spaced from each other by a little less than the spacing of the atoms – say about a tenth of a nanometre. The size of an electron is not known, but it is presumably much smaller than an atomic nucleus, which is about a millionth is a nanometre. That is, the electrons are spaced apart by more than 100,000 times their diameter. So they cannot deliver a nudge without moving, and they cannot move instantaneously because of their mass. …. …. REFERENCES 1. I. Catt, "The Catt Anomaly" (Westfields Press, St. Albans), 1996 2. A. C. Lynch, "Half the electron", Engineering Science and Education Journal, 6, pp 215-220 (1997) Dr. Arnold Lynch is an Honorary Research Fellow in the Dept. of Electronic Engineering, University College, London; correspondence can be addressed to him at 8 Heath Drive, Potters Bar, Herts, EN6 1EH

Catt remains uncommunicative on the presumed field around the ions in motion, but then his respondents draw attention to it!

McEwan's Snow Job 18jan00. McEwan, after four years incommunicando (he only ever wrote once, in 1996, under instruction from is boss, and then ignored all further communications from third parties and instructions from his boss to write again), now does a snow job, garnished with the 'confidential' card, and salted with grovels to Pepper FRS, a Southerner. [McEwan should have grovelled to Pepper FRS's boss Howie FRS, who, like McEwan, is a Westerner. I.C.1feb00] Dear Mr Catt, I am offering a reply to your recent correspondence. I do hope you will accept that this is entirely friendly and disinterested, and that I have honestly tried to explain the problem. I'd just like to first make a few personal comments about myself. [About 600 'confidential' words erased by I Catt.] ……… I hope you will understand therefore that I simply can't afford to get involved in a lot more correspondence on this issue, but I offer below some thoughts which I hope will help. ………. I must say that I don't think you are doing anything useful by stirring up issues of north versus south, east etc. I will trust to your integrity to treat my above comments, especially about my own circumstances, as totally confidential. [See p55 of the book "The Catt Anomaly", on this website, quoting Catt's 10sep96 letter to McEwan's boss; "I promise that his [McEwan's] response, and my further comments on him, will appear in future issues of this book." Should I now break my promise? These 'scientists' always play the 'confidential' card.] Now let me make a few comments for public consumption: ********************************************************* "I previously offered to Mr Catt a simple explanation of how the charge is conveyed along the transmission line. I used an uniform array of N electrons and N positive ions spaced out along a section of line of length L. I then pointed out that if we push in one extra electron at the left of this section, and redistribute the N + 1 electrons uniformly over that section, there appears a net unbalanced charge of one unit which is distributed nearly uniformly over that section, but none of the charges involved had to move a distance greater than L/N within the time it took to redistribute the charges. The large values of N actually involved explains why the particle velocity really is so small. This is the gist of my explanation which I won't repeat in detail as I assume Mr Catt has already included it and will recap it as necessary. I still stand by this as a basic explanation of how the charge is carried along the line. As I explained before, I think the anomaly only appears to exist because there is a confusion about the identity of the charges involved. The charge which actually supports the line voltage is actually a very slight unbalance between very large densities of positive and negative charges which are already in any given section of line before the propagaing wave reaches them. (Note the italics!) My description shows that a pattern of unbalanced charge can move far more rapidly than the individual charges involved. (I could make the obvious analogy with sound waves; after 1 second I hear the sound from a lightning stroke 340 metres away but it is perfectly obvious that none of the atmospheric molecules that were around the original discharge have arrived at my ears. Putting it a bit facetiously, I don't smell any ozone at the same time as the sound arrives and there certainly aren't any 340 m/sec winds blowing round my head. But surely the idea of particles transmitting stress to other particles is already clear enough.) I would like to emphasise that my description using N charges in a line was a deliberately simplified one intended to get over the key concept without a lot of detail. This leads me to my next point. I am prepared to take slight issue with Prof Pepper – again in a completely friendly way I hope – about the main component of the velocity of the charges. My recollection is that he agreed with me that the required charges are already in the section of line to start with, but I think he implied that the charges move laterally outward to generate the surface charge as the wave moves over them. I would assert that the main component of particle velocity is longitudinal. In fact it is easy to show that the current flow must have both lateral and longitudinal components, so I agree with Prof Pepper that there are lateral charge movements but I do assert that the longitudinal velocity components are the larger ones. We can go into this in a little more detail: The surface charges on the metallic conductors exist only in a very thin surface layer. Classical theory doesn't give any indication of the thickness of this layer. To do it properly means solving the wave mechanical equations for the states of the electrons near the surface. This I am not competent to do. However, this distance scale is obviously an atomic one. Within the conductor deeper than the surface charge layer, we will find there is no unbalanced charge density. We now have to introduce the concept of skin depth. The current flow along the conductor occurs within a layer near the surface whose thickness is the skin depth. Because the skin depth varies inversely as the square root of frequency, we are obliged to consider individual frequency components in the propagating pulse. However the skin depth is very much greater than the surface charge layer thickness up to very high frequencies, as (for copper) it is about 9 mm at 50 Hz and about 2 microns at 1 GHz. The implication of this is that the moving electrons must have both transverse and longitudinal components of velocity. They have to arrive at the surface of the metal, yet flow within a much thicker region. To arrive at the surface, they must, as Prof Pepper says, move sideways. However, if they only moved sideways, there would still not be any net charge imbalance in any small section of line. So here I am saying that Prof Pepper's description is incomplete, there have to be longitudinal motions as well. You can imagine the lines of the current flow field (at a single frequency) as like semi-loops in which one end of the loop starts on a patch of positive surface charge, bends round very sharply within the skin depth, then goes longitudinally along and terminates on a negative surface charge patch. I emphasise again, however, that no individual charge originally at one end of the loop has to arrive at the other end; only small individual velocities are involved. (This can be put a bit more formally using some mathematics. Because there can be no unbalanced charge density within the conductor, the current flow field must have zero divergence, i.e. if we use an x – axis along the cable axis and a y – axis normal to the conductor surface, then we must have dUsubx)/dx + dUsuby/dy = 0. Here Usubx and Usuby are the x and y components of the current density flow vector. Now the first term is certainly non – zero because the velocity does exist on the left of the wave front and not on the right of it. This implies that Usuby can't be zero. I include this only as shorthand for the benefit of those who are familiar with this kind of maths, but it isn't essential.) For the high frequency components within the propagating pulse, the ratio of the longitudinal velocity components to the transverse ones will be the approximate ratio of the wavelength of the guided wave to the skin depth. For components at sufficiently low frequencies where the skin depth becomes larger than the conductor transverse dimensions , the corresponding ratio will be of the order of the ratio of the wavelength of the wave to the transverse dimension of the appropriate conductor. I believe that in all virtually all practical cases this ratio is very much greater than unity. I am sure Prof Pepper will not be in the least offended by my raising this contention, and anyway I am quite prepared to be shot down about it if I myself am wrong. Within the approximations of the classical equations, the problem of the step wave propagating along a line made of conductors of finite conductivity can in principle be solved numerically using the finite-difference time domain method. I am not certain that the software that is actually around can cope well with the different length scales of the skin depth and the inter-conductor spacings. I don't have time to look into this, but if anyone else would like to have a go (or maybe even has done it already and I am not aware of it) I believe they will be able to demonstrate a current flow field similar to what I described: I think it will show almost purely longitudinal velocity components, uniformly distributed across the conductors, a long way behind the wave front, and transverse components that increase as you approach the propagating wave front. I have noted Mr Catt's comments where he says that one explanation of he wave transmission (and I believe it is correct) is that the electrons transmit the wave by each one "nudging" the next. [Nothing to do with Catt. Catt's co- author Dr. Lynch said this idea was presented by the lecturer at the IEE 1997 Wheatstone Lecture.] The point he [Lynch] raises here is that the spacing between the electrons is very much greater than the radii of the particles. I hope I am correct in interpreting his problem as: "how do they nudge each other if they are a long way from touching?" I have to say that I believe this is a total red herring. The particles don't have to touch each other to transmit the force; if you push one electron closer to another, the second one gets a nudge because the electrostatic repulsion acting on it increases. The increase, however, is not felt instantaneously by the second, but only after the time taken for light to travel from one to the other. (At this point we could now get into several very interesting further questions, but they are really sidelines as far as the resolution of the Catt anomaly is concerned. One is the question of what is meant by the radius of the electron. One possible definition is the radius at which the electrostatic field ceases to obey the inverse square law. There is also a classical definition based on the electromagnetic scattering cross section, and a quantum radius which I don't understand. I don't believe these quantities are connected, but I would be most interested in the comments of expert physicists. Another fundamental problem is what keeps particles together under their internal repulsion. This certainly isn't dealt with by Maxwell's equations, as they stand, but neither is it a problem for explaining the wave transmission problem. Again I simply don't know what the present state of knowledge is about these points, and would be interested to hear about recent developments from experts who are up to date. At extremely high frequencies, there are indeed effects due to the finite rate of acceleration of electrons in conductors under applied force. I believe the characteristic frequency at which this becomes important is the plasma frequency of the metal, normally somewhere in the X-ray region, I think. Finally a still higher level of description is to treat the electron movement using quantum mechanics.) To show there is a problem with an existing physical theory, you either have to show that is logically self-inconsistent or that is fails to agree with experimental observations. My conclusion is that, although Mr Catt's problem does provide many interesting exercises in applying the available theories, it still doesn't manage to meet my criteria for showing that there is a problem with them." **************************************************** (end of "public" material) To conclude, I hope you will think carefully about my comments and accept them as my best and most honest attempt to explain the issue, within the limits of my knowledge. [Approx. 200 more 'confidential' words erased by Ivor Catt] Very best wishes, Neil McEwan [18jan00] p66 Co-author Dr. A. Lynch to Ivor Catt, 30jan00 Dear Ivor, My physics dates back to the 1940's, since when I have usually called myself an electrical engineer. But I think the spacing of atoms in a solid or liquid is about 0.3nm, and the size of an atomic nucleus is less by a factor of thousands, so that energetic particles are able to pass through a thin film of solid with few collisions. The size and shape of an electron are, I believe, unknown. McEwan discusses the "nudging" sensibly, but he appears to assume that the electron is spherical – otherwise why "the" radius? …. …. …. …. There are, however, no doubts about J.J.'s discovery [which J.J. described to young Arnold Lynch, now aged 83, – I.C.]: electric charge is associated with inertia, and this is what matters for your Anomaly. Yours sincerely, Arnold Lynch Comment by Ivor Catt, 1feb00. Lynch first pointed out in our joint IEE paper that electrons are too far apart to nudge each other. Here, he points out that they must be far apart, not only in diameter, but also in their power to influence events, with large unaffected spaces between, "so that energetic particles are able to pass through a thin film of solid with few collisions." He is moving towards the suggestion that if electrons nudged each other, then X-ray photography would not work. – I.C. 1feb00. "Encyclopaedia Britannica 1910, vol 9, p237 "Electron …. The size of the electron is to that of an atom roughly in the ratio of a pin's head to the dome of St. Paul's cathedral. …. it has been suggested that its inertia is wholly electrical …." The electron has long arms, and nudges, not with its shoulders, but with its finger tips. – I Catt 2002 p67 From Sir Andrew Huxley, OM, FRS [Nobel prizewinner, ex Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.] 14may00 Dear Mr. Catt, I much enjoyed our conversation at dessert in Trinity a week ago. Thank you for your letter. Before I received it, I got your book [The Catt Anomaly] out of the library at Trinity. My reactions to the main point, as stated on your p. 3, are as follows.

The difficulty of details regarding the atomic model are thus revealed. The transmission of a wave at the speed of light is promulgated by "nudges" at the speed of light, to allow a charge to be in place just in time!. But a supposed inertia throws a spanner in the works.

Josephson enters the fray with his solution

Early Josephson UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS From: Prof. B.D. Josephson, F.R.S. Telephone: 01223-337260/337254/337200 Fax: 01223-337356 Telex: 81240 CAMSPL G Email: bdj10@cam.ac.uk Postal address: Cavendish Laboratory, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HE, England. Mar 11, 1997. Dear Mr. Catt, Thank you for your letter and your book. I found the contents very interesting, but am afraid I have to disagree with you with regard to your assertion; “Where does this new charge come from? …. Not from somewhere to the left, as such charge would have to travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.” This assertion may be ‘obvious to the untutored mind’, is in fact incorrect. This is argued by McEwan, but it may be easier to follow the argument if we move from the arena of electrons in a metal to the more visualisable one of boats on the Cam. Imagine we have a series of stationary boats, with uniform spacing d. At time t0 a pistol is fired, and each crew when it hears the pistol starts moving with velocity v (we assume for simplicity, unphysically, that the boats accelerate instantaneously to this velocity, the outcome is the same whether we assume this or not). Each crew hears the pistol going a time d/c earlier than do the crew of the boat next in front, c being the velocity of sound, and theyy move forward a distance dv/c in this time. The spacing of the boats thus changes from d to d – v/c as the sound pulse passes. An observer in an (aero)plane overhead would see a density discontinuity (smoothed out in the real case where the boats take time to get going), with the front moving with velocity c, since it is driven by the sound of the starting pistol. If we change sound wave (pulse) to electromagnetic pulse, and boats to electrons, we get the situation of your ‘anomaly’. It is no more necessary for the electrons to travel at the speed of light for the front to travel at the speed of light than it is for the boats to travel at the speed of sound for the front to travel at that speed: what is necessary is for there be a way for the guiding information to travel rapidly. I contacted Prof. Pepper about this and enclose the email I sent him since it includes more detailed analysis. He told me that he had been under the impression that you were talking about a waveguide not a transmission line, and had addressed his comments to that situation (he makes this impression as to what the issue is quite clear in the letter fropm him that you reproduce , hence I think your comments on this letter are rather aimed at the wrong target). In any event, the upshot after discussion with Pepper seems to be that all three ‘experts’ at the Cavendish are currently in agreement (here I am guessing what Howie said, since you do not give details). I am afraid that from my analysis there is no Catt anomaly (disagreement with Maxwell’s equations), but only an instructive Catt paradox (disagreement with what intuition tells one). Nevertheless I find your ‘experiment’ of sending the same question to large numbers of ‘experts’ quite interesting, as the reactions parallel those that I get when I bring up subjects such as the paranormal and homeopathy with people – when orthodoxy is under threat, rightly or wrongly it makes no difference, hasty gut reactions tend to take the place of science. Yours sincerely Brian Josephson P.S. You may if you feel it necessary circulate this, and also the attached letter to Pepper, but I would appreciate your letting me know your intentions if you do plan to do this. ___________________ Previous leter to Pepper. …. I’ve received a letter from one Ivor Catt raising the question of what happens if a step voltage is applied to a transmission line, which question I gather the Master passed on to you for a response. Catt’s book reveals an interesting variety of replies. It seems to me that the correct answer lies along the following lines: 1) After the step has passed we have a steady voltage across the lines, and there must be corresponding charge per unit length on each line of +-CV, where C is the capacitance of the line per unit length and V the voltage. 2) This charge cannot be entirely explained by displacement of charge from the interior (your explanation), since charge is conserved and such displacements would not alter the net charge per unit length. 3) It must therefore come from the left, In fact a current V/Z, where Z is the characteristic impedance of the line, is to be expected, and presumably a simple calculation would show this to be exactly what is needed to create the charge left on the line. 4) Your, and Catt’s assertion that this cannot happen (and the official IEE response also) because the electrons do not travel at the speed of light, is incorrect, as noted by Neil McEwan. What actually happens is that an EM pulse travels along the line at the speed of light and this gives a kick to the electrons locally to get them moving at the right speed. At the edge of the step there is a very large electric field as the voltage changes discontinuously (assuming zero resistance; as McEwan observes; the step will spread out (and also attenuate) if there is anmy resistance). What limits the resulting current is not inertia (though this would limit how fast it would rise), but back-emf. Copied by Ivor Catty on 27 July 2009. [Statement by Ivor Catt] The rest of this letter should be somewhere in my files. I will try to find it. Ivor Catt.]

Josephson attempts to end the Catt Anomally by asserting pepper agrees with him. Forrest bishop in 2006 receives a communication that he does not. The Anomally , that is a disagreement on EM theory is not resolved.

However Catt has by then devised a second Question.

In 1976 a new theory is born. Heavisides Energy Current concept starts to bear fruit.



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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s