Not Wikipedia

 

Others on Ivor Catt in Wikipedia

by Ivor Catt, 31 August 2007

Copied from Wikipedia on 31 August 2007

.[edit] Vandalism
Bm gub: You have vandalised the page by replacing facts from peer-reviewed publications with half-baked opinions, which don't reflect the facts. For example, you have falsely asserted that Ivor Catt grew in in Singapore, when he actually moved around the world as his father was transferred between RAF airbases, and this falsehood has been inserted because you haven't even bothered to check the facts.

Everything you write is ignorant lies or "errors". You're not revising the article, you're deleting all the referenced facts and replacing them with false drivel and personal insults, which are banned under Wiki rules anyway. Any changes you insert need references, and if you aren't expert in the subject of Catt (sadly cross-talk stuff is probably a long way from your PhD in electronic circuits), it isn't a good idea to delete the material you haven't heard of and replace it with personal insults and sneers about the person.

All the insults in your comment after the revert of your vandalism ignore the facts there on the page which you tried to delete. For example, key ideas you criticise were actually developed by Dr David Walton and Malcolm Davidson, and Catt was the activist trying to get discussion going inside the IEE and IEEE. Sometimes one of the censors of Catt pops up writing a letter to Electronics World or here on this Wiki page about Catt, claims he or she is a PhD expert or whatever, and then insists that Catt is self-praising himself and an egotist. That's no admissible really, it's contentless drivel which can claimed about many people. This is why the facts are more important than such opinions and insults, such as the fact that a lot of the work is not Catt's, and that his successful inventions built on the discoveries of others such as Heaviside, Dr Walton, Davidson, Mike S. Gibson, and several others.

The Wiki page is about the facts concerning Ivor Catt, not about your personal opinions or the fact - stressed in the original article - that his work is not mainstream. Your attacks on his work as being self publication are false since the science is actually the work of many others. If you have opinions, you are welcome to try to publish them somewhere more appropriate, such as in a journal if you can survive peer-rview. Then we can cite your wisdom here on Wikipedia!

Photocopier Photocopier 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Photocopier, your comments above are objectively in violation of WP:CIVIL. Please read Behavior that is unacceptable carefully and please pay particular attention to No personal attacks. Also, please carefully read What vandalism is not. Regards: Alfred Centauri 20:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Alfred: I'm making a response to vandalism, not an attack: many people's editing and referenced, carefully researched and checked information was deleted and replaced with some ill-informed opinions and insulting claims (with no supporting evidence whatsoever) about a "mainstream consensus" of authorities on Catt, which doesn't exist. There is no consensus because the only people in authority who comment on Catt make contradictory remarks: this is the opposite of a consensus. I was perfectly civil, I didn't call anybody a liar for making what are evidently hostile, personally insulting, misleading and possibly libellous false claims and unfounded assertions. However, the scale of the vandalism of the article was such that a civil, yet unequivocally worded, response seemed needed on this discussion page to explain that simply deleting a whole article and replacing it with some obvious fantasy based entirely on misunderstandings and complete ignorance (if not deliberate vandalism), was somewhat unhelpful. Photocopier 15:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Photocopier, no offense meant. I thought the Singapore thing was implied in the previous version, and I meant to just reword it into standard encyclopedia bio style ("John Doe was born in X on Jan 1 1901, and grew up in Y" rather than launching straight into childhood anecdotes. Thank you for correcting the facts. How is "Ivor Catt was born in XXX but grew up on RAF airbases around the world; he and his mother narrowly escaped the invasion of Singapore in 1942."? Please reword it to your satisfaction rather than reverting and accusing me of bad faith.

Next, after taking a deep breath: I know that the following is not your preferred version of the article, but please tell me which point is factually wrong in this shortened account:

Catt's views on electromagnetism Catt argues that much of mainstream electromagnetism is wrong: Catt does not admit the existence of electric charge as a fundamental entity and he claims that all charge is composed of trapped Heaviside energy current. He argues that capacitance and inductance are fictional, being artifacts of transmission-line effects in the devices; that displacement current is not needed to explain capacitor operation. As opposed to normal current (flow of charge), Catt uses energy current to describe most effects. Catt illustrates this with the Catt anomaly. When a step electromagnetic wave travels from left to right in a parallel twin-conductor transmission line, he asks, "Where does the charge on the bottom (return) conductor come from?" He does not answer that question, but states that simply asking the question proves that conventional electrodynamics must be false. The subtext of his argument here seems to be that charge from the conductors is not necessary for the transmission of EM waves in transmission lines. The electric field carrying the energy precedes and causes subsequent electron drift current, but the field is not itself charge, but rather Heaviside "energy current", light speed electromagnetic energy.

Catt's views on digital logic Catt has a long-standing dispute about "exclusive-or" in Boolean algebra. He has noted that "and", "or", "exclusive-or" (and their inverses) are the six functions out of the 16 possible functions of two Boolean inputs for which A op B is the same as B op A. Catt calls this "symmetric", and complains that Boolean algebra deals with "and" and "or" and ignores "ex-or". He appears to have been arguing this since his IC design days, when he apparently failed to convince his boss of the business case for having an EXOR function in the product range. (De Morgan's Laws state that a "positive-logic AND" is a "negative-logic OR" and vice versa.)

Seriously, what part of this is misrepresenting Catt's views? Most of it is verbatim from your preferred edit. Next, for the criticism section, please give some detail on my revision:

Current status of Catt's ideas

The view of Catt's ideas by mainstream physicists is that his earlier work on digital logic circuits is of value, but his later ideas about electromagnetism are incorrect. Because Catt's views have been expressed mainly in popular-press articles, self-published books, and on informal Internet forums, mainstream physicists view Catt's ideas, to the extent that they have heard of them, as pseudophysics. In particular, the fact that Catt's views are not expressed in compact mathematical form (Catt's view is that the use of mathematics in physics is "skillful manipulation of meaningless symbols") means that, in the conventional view, his work is out of the scope of conventional physics and cannot make reliable predictions to compare to experiments. Catt claims that there are some workers who are beginning to re-evaluate his ideas on the transmission-line representation of the capacitor in order to achieve better modelling of these components.

That looks pretty reality-based to me, Photocopier. It is a fact that Catt's views are expressed mainly on his webpages; that Electronics World and Wireless World were both an edited popular-electronics magazines, not peer-reviewed journals. It is a fact that Catt's views on the nature of electromagnetism are mostly ignored and rejected by the mainstream; Catt himself seems to complain about this, which seems to confirm it as a fact (even if it's a fact he doesn't like ... but "facts you don't like" are not to be excluded from Wikipedia; wikipedia is not advertising, is not a personal homepage.) Note, also, that the paragraph above does not disparage anything Catt may or may not say about circuit design, practical aspects of crosstalk, etc.. It simply reports the plain and simple fact that Catt is an outsider and that essentially all mainstream physicists disagree with him. Bm gub 14:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


Bm gub: you say "please tell me which point is factually wrong in this shortened account: ... Catt does not admit the existence of electric charge as a fundamental entity and he claims that all charge is composed of trapped Heaviside energy current. He argues that capacitance and inductance are fictional, being artifacts of transmission-line effects in the devices; that displacement current is not needed to explain capacitor operation. As opposed to normal current (flow of charge), Catt uses energy current to describe most effects. Catt illustrates this with the Catt anomaly. When a step electromagnetic wave travels from left to right in a parallel twin-conductor transmission line, he asks, "Where does the charge on the bottom (return) conductor come from?" He does not answer that question, but states that simply asking the question proves that conventional electrodynamics must be false. The subtext of his argument here seems to be that charge from the conductors is not necessary for the transmission of EM waves in transmission lines. The electric field carrying the energy precedes and causes subsequent electron drift current, but the field is not itself charge, but rather Heaviside "energy current", light speed electromagnetic energy."

It's completely unsubstantiated opinion, similar to your false deduction that because Catt was in Singapore when the Japanese invaded, he must have been brought up in Singapore.

Sorry about the Singapore thing. That's the most easily fixed error in the world. Thank you for fixing it. Bm gub 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You take lots of little bits out of context to make up a personal insult by misrepresenting the facts. First, look at Catt's page (taken from his major 1994 book, http://www.ivorcatt.com/1_3.htm and you will see the section "the electron" at the end concerning Catt's construction of an electron from energy current. Your claim that "Catt does not admit the existence of electric charge as a fundamental entity and he claims that all charge is composed of trapped Heaviside energy current" is false since charge is a property measurable only as fields. Nobody has collided electrons harder than 90 GeV or so, nobody knows what "charge" is (Planck scale string or whatever), except for it's definition which is a "static electric field". Catt shows how a static electric field arises from energy current, and on the same page (higher up), he explains:

"a) Energy current can only enter a capacitor at the speed of light. b) Once inside, there is no mechanism for the energy current to slow down below the speed of light. c) The steady electrostatically charged capacitor is indistinguishable from the reciprocating, dynamic model. d) The dynamic model is necessary to explain the new feature to be explained, the charging and discharging of a capacitor, and serves all the purposes previously served by the steady, static model."

"All charge is composed of trapped Heaviside " etc. is in the version you just reverted to. I didn't write it. Look. Bm gub 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You then say "He argues that capacitance and inductance are fictional, being artifacts..." which is another nonsensical contradiction, because artifacts are real, they are not fictional! Catt shows that a mechanism exists for charge, for capacitance and inductance. He doesn't show these things are "fictional".

That's a semantic dispute. It's perfectly valid to say "Lomonsov showed that phlogiston was fictional, being an artifact of the exchange of mass with the atmosphere during burning" or "the pentaquark turned out to be fictional; the observed bump was an artifact introduced during data analysis." OK, reword it however you like. At some point he has to be saying that some mainstream concept isn't really there, but is thought to be there due to the misintepretation of Catt's real concepts. Which concept is this? Charge current? Can we say, "catt argues that charge-current is fictional, and that the mainstream belief in is is due to XXXX"? Bm gub 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Next, you claim that Catt shows "that displacement current is not needed to explain capacitor operation". Again, this is not a contradiction of mainstream theoretical physics, where Maxwell's physical displacement current went out with the aether and in its place there is a mathematical law associated with the Yang-Mills theory whereby all operations in spacetime in fields that are too weak to cause pair-production (below Schwinger's E=10^18 v/m threshold for pair production) involve gauge bosons exchange, not an aetherial "displacement current". Since Catt's replacement for aetherial "displacement current" is light speed radiation, it's consistent with quantum field theory, unlike the old nonsense of "displacement current".

So why is it such an exciting claim? Catt's claim to fame is that he doesn't disagree with the mainstream model of current, charge, and energy stored in the static field? Delete as non-notable, then. You may notice that this claim wasn't put there by me but by previous editors; I just shortened it. You may notice that my longer version of the "criticism" section---the one you initially reacted to---said basically what you are saying now: "displacement current isn't real and everyone knows this; it is not clear why Catt labels this as an important claim." You deleted this bit with extreme prejudice, but now you're restating it. (I stand by my version: displacement current is a silly artifact which arises when you want to use Kirchoff's Laws instead of Maxwell's Equations. The correct description can come straight from Maxwell without invoking quantum field theory. But this is beside the point.)Bm gub 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Then you claim: "As opposed to normal current (flow of charge), Catt uses energy current to describe most effects. Catt illustrates this with the Catt anomaly." This is completely false, because flow of charge has never been equivalent to flow of energy: they are two different things because charge carries negligible kinetic energy, and the energy is carried by gauge bosons (as I've just explained, the gauge bosons are same thing as the TEM wave or Heaviside energy current, they mediate the field). Consider the mass of the conduction in typical transmission lines, they are on the order of about 1 part in 2000 of the mass, and their drift velocity even in a 1 amp current is typically on the order 1 mm/s. So the energy carried and delivered (1/2)mv^2 is trivial. This has nothing to do with electron current. You are confusing the two things, and then claiming that Catt is replacing electric current with energy current. Catt has electrons in his theory, and obviously they will be moved where there is a gradient in the electric potential, so you're making up nonsense.

Dude, I left that line in 'verbatim' from the previous version of the page. You reverted to this version yourself. If you like I can accuse you of vandalism for saying such utter nonsense .... just kidding. :) If this is wrong, it was wrong in your long version and wrong in my short version. What's right? Why don't you put that into the article? Bm gub 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Finally, you say: "He does not answer that question, but states that simply asking the question proves that conventional electrodynamics must be false. The subtext of his argument here seems to be that ..."

Catt doesn't state that "asking the question proves that conventional electrodynamics must be false", the question is an assessment of the degree of consensus and scientific discussion possible in electromagnetism between experts, and it is the answer he gets from experts which decides whether or not conventional ideology is helpful to a student who asks questions and hopes to get a similar answer from each expert. Professors asked by Catt, who he names and publishes, give different answers.

"The subtext of his argument here seems to be that ..."

You write this after making a false summary of Catt's question. So you make your own false conclusion, and then you write about the "subtext" to your own false conclusion. You are writing about your own personal ideas. This is your own opinion, which must be published in a peer reviewed journal before it can be mentioned here in a Wiki article about a living person. Thank you.

Again, that's all verbatim from the 'previous version' that 'you have reverted to twice'. You're quoting yourself and arguing with it. Please read the old edit (the one before I ever showed up) more carefully. Figure out who wrote that and go yell at them instead of at me. Bm gub 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Further on, after more of this sort of personal insulting drivel based on your own opinions rather than on referenced facts, you write:

"Most of it is verbatim from your preferred edit. Next, for the criticism section, please give some detail on my revision: Current status of Catt's ideas. The view of Catt's ideas by mainstream physicists ..."

Here, you are giving your views and claiming to be giving a consensus by "mainstream physicists". You don't quite seem to be aware that mainstream physicists have contradictory views. If you read Catt's book "Catt Question", you will notice that there are two different views on a simple question. There is no consensus whatsoever. So all your writing on this page is insulting self-opinions, unsubstantiated by even a grain of evidence. It's rubbish, it's offensive, ... Photocopier 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


Photocopier said:
"Further on, after more of this sort of personal insulting drivel based on your own opinions rather than on referenced facts..."
"So all your writing on this page is insulting self-opinions, unsubstantiated by even a grain of evidence. It's rubbish, it's offensive..."
Photocopier, your comments to User:Bm gub (a sample of which are quoted above) are objectively not civil. This is your 2nd warning. Alfred Centauri 16:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all: legal threats are inappropriate per WP:NLT; please read the policy page on this issue. Seriously. I'm more amused than annoyed by your personal insults, but legal threats will be reported to the admins.
Mainstream physicists have contradictory views about many things, but whether or not a charge-current flows in a DC transmission line is not one of them. Show me one refereed publication where a mainstream physicist 'uses' Catt's ideas about the electron, current, etc. (Again: I'm not saying a word against wafer-scale integration, etc.) Show me where these "different views" are being debated in the literature. They're not; they controversy consists of "Catt emailed so-and-so and he disagreed", and "there are two blog commenters arguing about Y". That's not my opinion, that is a fact. (Citebase hits for Catt: zero. ArXiv hits for Catt: zero. Scholar.google.com hits for Catt: several, almost all on wafer-scale integration. His book on electromagnetism has been cited by one book and one article.) I can open up every E&M book on my shelf and show you where it explains current as the ordinary flow of charge ... shall I begin? Liboff, chapter 8.4, 11.14, and 12.9. Pantell & Puthoff, chapter 8. Callister, Materials science, chapter 19. Eisberg & Resnick, ch 13. Halliday, Resnick & Walker, ch 26 and ch 42-5. Griffiths E&M, the whole book; J. D. Jackson ditto. Sorry, Photocopier, Catt and his ideas are not in there. Is it in Horowitz and Hill? Do I have to hit the library?
In any case: in science and engineering, last I heard, saying that someone's ideas are incorrect is not "insulting". It's how you separate right ideas from wrong ideas. I did not say "Catt is an X" nor "Only a great fool could possibly think Y", I said, "Catt says X, but most physicists disagree with him." Bm gub 17:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Alfred Centauri: Bm gub ignores the facts and writes rpeatedly things which are untrue. I've explained this twice and it is ignored. See also the discussion and edits of the Jeremy Webb page for vandalism by Bm gub who is a sock puppet for New Scientist, who has been sending out abusive insults (lacking science and ignoring the facts entirely!) about Ivor Catt for years [[1]].
Also notice the highlighted banner at the very top of this page which states: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Photocopier 13:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Bm gub: you say "in science and engineering, last I heard, saying that someone's ideas are incorrect is not "insulting"." I've explained to you repeatedly why you have written falsehoods and you claim that this is an insult. You keep writing contradictions. Look up the definition of the word rubbish before you take it to be an insult, PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you very much for doing me this little favor!!!!!!!!!
Please also note that everything you claim about me making "threats" about legal action is PERSONALLY INSULTING TO ME, IT IS ALSO RUBBISH, AND IT IS A LIE: see the banner at the top of this page: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."
Your vandalism of other pages like the Jeremy Webb page is similar in the sense that your claims for doing so are false, as can easily be seen by anyone who checks what you are doing. For example, you claim to remove references to three comments, when they are to published articles and blog posts by a professor in mathematical physics (John Baez), which has numerous comments below it. You are doing all the insulting, not me. I'm pointing out the precise reasons why everything you are writing is personally insulting rubbish and the fact you ignore the disproof show that you did not make a mere mistake or error, but that you are deliberately inserting falsehoods. This is defined as telling lies, which is a fact, not me insulting you. If anyone is insulting, it is you. Photocopier 13:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Photocopier, you seem not to appreciate that my edit, though shorter, consisted almost entirely of verbatim extracts from your preferred edit. Please rethink your position in light of this. I am not a sock puppet for New Scientist, I am a WP editor of some standing whose main focuses are contemporary sculpture, experimental particle physics, and pseudoscience; I followed your edit history back to Jeremy Webb; my corrections there are in the same spirit as those here; my edit history will attest that I'd never touched Webb, New Scientist, etc. prior to this. Also, please address the very serious issue, which I raise above, that Catt's ideas do not appear anywhere in a dozen major textbooks' treatments of electric current. Bm gub 00:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Bm gug, I fear that you're wasting your time arguing with Photocopier. If you've not already noticed, while your statement that Catt "grew up in Singapore" is an overstatement (given that Catt was barely 7 years old when he was evacuated ahead of the Japanese invasion), Photocopier's assertion that Catt "travelled the world" with his father's postings is distinctly wrong, as the Singapore posting was the only time Sidney Catt's family accompanied him abroad, and his post-war service was at RAF Valley in Anglesey (North Wales).
Between you, you are drifting off into irrelevancies, which has been the trouble with the debate on Catt's ideas ever since the beginning. The problem is really in Photocopier's reference to "peer-reviewed publications" because (with the possible exception of the "inductor-as-transmission-line" IEEE article) Catt's writing is not peer-reviewed. In fact, understanding why he can't get his papers into peer-reviewed journals goes a long way to explaining what is wrong with Catt's theories.
Consider his December 1978 Wireless World article ("Displacement Current",) which repackages the analysis of a voltage step in a transmission line, and demonstrates that it behaves like a capacitor. The analysis is perfectly sound; however, it is also perfectly consistent with the "mainstream consensus" based on the concept of charge. Where Catt's theory diverges is the penultimate sentence that states "This model does not require use of the concept of charge." This, from the point of view of the "mainstream", is sheer nonsense. Catt's analysis is expressed in terms of voltage and impedance. Even if the relationship between voltage, charge and capacitance is ignored, impedance is, by definition, an extension of the the concept of resistance, and is therefore an expression of the relationship between voltage and current, and thus is fundamentally dependent on the concept of charge! In order to eliminate the concept of charge, Catt would need to find a new way of defining impedance. This he has not done, and in consequence the whole of his theorising is entirely invalid.
This is largely where Catt (and his supporters) have got things backwards. It is not the job of the "mainstream" to show where Catt is wrong; it is Catt's job to show that the mainstream is wrong, and that he simply has not done. What he has done is to describe how his theory explains observed facts. What he has never done is to demonstrate a situation where his theory comes up with a different answer to the mainstream one, and to devise an experiment to determine what the correct answer is, thus proving which theory works better. That is how science works - Catt seems not to understand this. -- Kevin Brunt 20:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Catt Question, yet again
I see that Photocopier has brought us back to the Catt Question/Anomaly, and the supposed disagreement between Professor Pepper of Cambridge and Doctor McEwen of Bradford. If you look at it properly, the answers they provided to Catt's Question are very clearly not in conflict with each other. What the two academics do not agree on is what the question meant. And the reason for that is entirely due to Catt's Question in the first place. [Note 1.]

The Question starts

.... when a TEM step ....
(see The Catt Anomaly) Two paragraphs before this, Catt presents a paraphrase of the question

When a battery is connected to a resistor ....
Now the whole point is that Catt thinks that a flow of current is a TEM something. In this he is in disagreement with mainstream physics on two counts. Catt thinks that there is no flow of charge distinct from the flow of energy; physicists (including Heaviside) think that there is a flow of charge and a flow of current. Secondly, Catt uses "TEM" to refer to anything where the electric and magnetic fields and the motion are mutually perpendicular; physicists use the phrase "transverse electromagnetic wave" specifically to refer to a transverse wave (ie a wave that is oscillating in a direction perpendicular to the direction of motion) where the thing that is oscillating is a combination of the electromagnetic field.

The upshot of this is that whereas Catt thinks that the two versions of his question have the same meaning, they are entirely distinct questions when read by a physicist who applies the consensual meanings of the terminology.

Once you realise that there is a serious ambiguity in Catt's Question, it is perfectly clear that Prof Pepper (who was unaware of Catt's non-standard position) was trying to answer ".... when a TEM step ....", while Dr McEwen (undoubtedly a Wireless World reader) was answering "When a battery is connected to a resistor ....".

This is not a problem with the physics, but rather with Catt's Question. See Minor_characters_from_The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy#Majikthise_and_Vroomfondel Vroomfondel and Forty-two. -- Kevin Brunt 20:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Kevin, Catt asks "where does the charge come from?" If those experts did not understand what this question means, they could have asked for confirmation from Catt. Neither did so. Hence they were both confused by the question, which resulted in their differing answers to it. Your claim that the answers were not in conflict because the answers were answers to different interpretations of the question "where does the charge come from?" is really in self-contradiction. If two kids are asked what is 2 + 2, and one gives the answer 3 while the other gives the answer 6, it might well be the case that they both misunderstood the question (poor hearing, frequency distortion, causes misunderstandings). But that doesn't disprove the fact that the answers are different, and if you have different answers, then the answers are in disagreement, regardless of the cause. You seem to be assuming that because the experts possibly didn't understand the simple written question, their differing answers are not evidence of a conflict. However, the answers are in conflict, regardless of the underlying cause behind the differences of opinion they express concerning where the charge comes from. The fact remains, the responses are different by 90 degrees. That's a contradiction, whatever is the cause.
You claim: "Catt thinks that there is no flow of charge distinct from the flow of energy; physicists (including Heaviside) think that there is a flow of charge and a flow of current." This claim by you is your assertion of Catt's thoughts. You start by ignoring Catt's discussion of the electron, which moves in response to the field. You then claim that because Catt's model is such and such, he thinks there is no flow of charge. Catt actually deals with facts, and you are muddling up models and claiming they are someone else's thought processes, which is insulting and in error. The fact which Catt makes clear is that the field causes effects like electron drift. Catt doesn't in any place ever disprove electrons or electron drift, he simply deals with the TEM wave, the field. Please see [[2]].
172.143.107.132 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The experts are in perfect agreement about where the charge comes from - it is already in the conductor. It has been known since the start of the 20th Century that an "uncharged" mass actually contains vast (but equal) quantities of positive and negative charge, in the form of sub-atomic particles, and that the phenomenon of "charge" in the 19th Century sense is a statistical statement about the displacement of the particles from their equilibrium state.

In the absence of any additional context, Catt's Question appears to be about an electromagentic wave impinging on a conductor, which is quite clearly what Pepper's answer is about. McEwen, on the other hand, has not tried to answer the Question (and it is perfectly clear from what he wrote that it was not his intention to answer the Question.) Instead, (being very obviously aware of Catt's theories) McEwen has set out to explain how the "mainstream" consensus can accommodate the idea of near-light-speed propagation of a wavefront in a conductor with the millimetre-per-second drift velocity of the electron mass. Your "2 + 2" example is not helpful, or representative. A better one might be "What is the difference between an Apricot and a Tangerine?" which has different answers depending on whether you are referring to fruit or to obsolete British microcomputers.

RE: energy current... Let's start by noting that you mentioned the electron first. It is the discovery of the electron in 1897 and the evolution of the Drude model of conduction (and its quantum mechanical successors) that solves the dicotomy between "charge current" and "energy current". Catt's theories derive from Heaviside's 1888 publication (ie before the electron!) and it is clear that Catt does not really want to extend his theorising. Note particularly that Catt's Question only tangentially approaches the concept of the electron with the mention of the "drift velocity of the electric current".

I hold by my statement as to Catt's position, for which see The Death of Electric Current. Catt distinguished between "Theory N" - flow of charge + flow of energy (no attempt to explain why); "Theory H" (Heaviside) flow of charge + flow of energy (defined by Poynting Vector E x H) and "Theory C" (Catt) flow of energy.

Theories N, H and C appeared originally in Digital Hardware Design Chapter 10 and it is clear exactly where Catt's theories diverge from Heaviside's conception. At the bottom of page 65 (first page of the chapter) appears the quote from Heaviside that ends "We reverse this....." Now what Heaviside is reversing is not, as the following text would suggest, Theory N, but rather a suggestion by Maxwell that the flow of energy is the sum of the energies held in the electric and magnetic fields as they are carried through the conductor by the flow of charge. Maxwell is thus suggesting that there is no flow of energy distinct from the flow of charge.

Heaviside's "reversal" is a repudiation of Maxwell's suggestion. Heaviside requires both a flow of energy and a flow of charge. By invoking the Poynting Vector Heaviside automatically gets the magnitude of the flow of energy to be related to the vector product of the electric and magnetic fields, and thus proportional to the product of the voltage and current (which Maxwell's sum of energies simply cannot be made to do.)

When you look at Catt's detailed working of his theory, in Electromagnetism 1, chapter 1, you see that his energy current, like Maxwell's, is the sum of the separate energies held in the electric and magnetic fields. Catt's conception is the counterpart of Maxwell's; where Maxwell's energy flow is "in phase" with the current, Catt's energy flow is in phase with the voltage. Catt's version has the same problems as Maxwell's, and Heaviside would have dismissed as comprehensively. -- Kevin Brunt 19:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Hello
Hello, I stumbled across this page. Having never heard of Ivor Catt, I have done a bit of reading and I'm inclined to make a major revision. Seeing that he has some fans here I would like to preempt an edit war. My credentials, in case they matter, are as a physics postdoc with experience with circuits, electron beams, ion beams, electron traps, etc. Here goes:

What's the point of Catt's argument that "displacement current" doesn't exist? Of course it doesn't "exist". It's an artifact which shows up if you try (incorrectly) to use Kirchoff's current law in a circuit where there is a variable charge density. It's convenient in circuit design when you want to write equations strictly in terms of I and V, without having also a Q term. But of course it's not a real thing; the real things are electrons and electromagnetic fields. If you work through the behavior of a capacitor using charge currents, charge densities, and fields, it gives you an exact physical description---including the electric fields in the capacitor gap, the attraction/repulsion of electrons on the other side of the gap, and the appearance of a current on the other side. If you work through a capacitor using Kirchoff's Law, you have to invent the "displacement current" to rescue the conservation law when you analyze the gap itself. Does Catt's entire argument spring from "There is no displacement current; therefore the mainstream professors, who taught me that there is, are wrong"?
Does Catt have a theory of electrostatic force? Isn't that an important detail---more important than some disagreement between Spice and reality in some random transient circuit---of the claim that electrons do not carry charge? (Do protons and nuclei carry charge, then?)
Almost all of the "physics" references are to Ivor Catt's own articles and Web pages. By Wikipedia's NOR standards, this is unacceptable; if Catt can write "copper is an dielectric with blah blah", put it on his Web page, and point Wikipedia to it, than any crackpot can come along and do the same with their pet theory of how the ether is made up of leprechauns. This whole page reads like the front page of Catt's personal website.
Catt is thoroughly outside of the mainstream of E&M theory. This needs to be made absolutely clear on every point of disagreement. I know that Catt wants to be in the mainstream, and has been arguing for his theories for a long time, but the fact remains (and Catt surely knows it) that he's not there yet. Wikipedia is a terrible place to try to jump-start or popularize his theories; that's the strategy of crackpots. Popularize elsewhere, report the popularity here.
I see that the talk page below is going back and forth about the details of E&M and QED's validity. This is interesting and should continue, but---well, I haven't read the talk archives, but I hope you're aware that anything you logically hash-out on this page is not relevant to the validity of statements on the article. If you think that you've found a flaw in QED, take it over to the Quantum Electrodynamics talk page---if that flaw isn't borne out by the mainstream QED literature, it's not a valid basis for this article, except to say that "Catt believes he has found flaws in QED" or whatever. Is this approach hidebound and anti-progress? Well, Wikipedia talk pages are a bad place to make scientific progress. If your arguments actually do turn up a flaw in QED, take it to Phys Rev Letters and come back to WP to report the contents of your article.
Things I want to delete: about 2/3rds of "Catt's Views on Electromagnetism", which, at the level they're supported elsewhere, merit about two paragraphs. Public Arguments, Support From ... , War of Words, Quotes On, Associates/Supporters: these should be deleted entirely. It reads like a blogger summing up his favorite flamewars. Unlike Galileo, Catt has not won this fight, making the details are pretty non-notable. (If he wins and is vindicated in a big way, come back and write about his struggles on the way up.) All of the non-bibliography quality references should go, along with about half of the external links. Bm gub 21:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
"Hello, I stumbled across this page. Having never heard of Ivor Catt, I have done a bit of reading and I'm inclined to make a major revision." - Bm gub.


[edit] Welcome to the fray
Hi. It's nice to have someone else here!

I've archived all the old discussion here as it really was irrelevant! To make sense of it you need to know that (towards the end at least) there were 3 participants in the discussion:

"Light current", who originally created the page and whose position on Catt's ideas I never did quite work out, as he (LC) tended to put forward a contrary argument to everything. He appears to have been indefinitely banned from Wikipedia after getting into a messy argument with the Administration.
Nigel (Cook) who published a pair of articles, "An Electronic Universe", in Electronics World in 2002/3, which used Catt's "trapped Heaviside current" as a jumping-off point. Nigel was in correspondence with Catt, but this seems to have ceased because Nigel wants to take Catt's ideas beyond where Catt wants to go....
Myself - I'm a computer programmer who is thoroughly irritated by the imprecisions in Catt's writings. I've also debated Nigel at his blog, until he prevented commenting....
I doubt that I'm in serious disagreement with you about the overall value of Catt's writing. However, given that Catt's choice of venues for presenting his argument have largely prevented an accurate rebuttal being presented, there is a case for doing that here. The issue with the page as it currently stands is that it could do with vigorous sub-editing. There is excessive repetition and it does not adequately distance itself from Catt's POV. I would have said that the "Original Research" issue is something of a red herring, as the page is presenting Catt's opinions and conclusions; where it fails is in pointing out where Catt's opinions diverge from observed fact!

The problem really starts in his book "Digital Hardware Design", where the "stepwise" charging of a capacitor is first presented. This is done using the concepts of the characteristic impedance of a transmission line, and the velocity of propagation along it. There is no problem with the analysis; rather it is in the presentation of the formulae deployed as being somehow "fundamental", rather than deriving from the solution of the Telegrapher's Equations for an applied step waveform. Indeed, on page 14 of the book, Catt (et al) deny the derivation of the Tel. Eqns as the application of calculus to the delta V and delta I of the series L/shunt C representation of a finite length of a TL.

In fact, Catt argues that because he shows that "a capacitor is a transmission line", that it is "absurd" to assert the converse, that "a transmission line is a capacitor". I think that this is at the heart of the whole thing. Catt elsewhere talks about "causality". He appears to want to read the equation "A = B" as "A is caused by B", rather than the more neutral "where there is B there must also be A". Consequentally, by arguing that the current is "caused" by the magnetic field, he thinks that he is disproving the Ampere-Maxwell equation. -- Kevin Brunt 20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Question #2
OK, there's the rewrite. Here's question number 2: if Catt is notable in the Wikipedia sense, why can I find no information about him other than his own Web pages? A Google search for "Ivor Catt" turns up page after page of links to ivorcatt.com and www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk, but virtually nothing---not even Usenet arguments---beyond that. Rather than saying Catt is "well known for his controversial approach", perhaps the article should say, in its entirety, "Catt was a circuit engineer of some repute in the 1970s. Today, he has a voluminous output of alternative electromagnetic theories, published via his own Web pages, where he reports on his arguments with mainstream engineers and physicists. " I see no evidence that he's even famous by crank standards in the manner of Tom Bearden, nor controversial by the standards of ... oh, I dunno, process physics. Can anyone turn up an article somewhere (other than crank.net or keelynet) actually about Ivor Catt +++ , even for the purpose of saying "I got into an argument with Catt"? If not, I'm in favor of nominating this for deletion. Bm gub 18:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Insertion

+++ New Scientist

"Depending on who[m] you talk to in the generally conservative semiconductor industry, Catt is either a crank or a visionary. For 20 years, he has been refining the theoretical foundations for a revolution in the semiconductor industry ...." - "On the importance of being creative; Innovative thinkers should be allowed to come to the fore", New Scientist, 12june86, p35;

".... Ivor Catt, an innovative thinker whose own immense ability in electronics has all too often been too far ahead of conventional ideas to be appreciated: significantly, Catt is beginning to get some high-level backing from companies who see the possibility of major breakthroughs from his work ('Wafers herald new era in computing', New Scientist, 25 February 1989)." - New Scientist, 25nov89, p75. [In the end, the backing ran to £16 millions of foreign and British Government money. The resulting product came to market and was "best product of the year" for two US electronics journals - ELECTRONIC DESIGN 26oct89 and another. See WSI on this website.]

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


[edit] Edit War?
There seems to be a reversion war going on between Photocopier and Bm gub.

Photocopier had reverted Bm gub's edits because Photocopier claimed they were "vandalism". This statement is incorrect; although Bm gub did rewrite the article, the rewriting is not explicit vandalism.

Here is Wikipedia's definition of vandalism (from Wikipedia:Vandalism): "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.... Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." The edits that Bm gub made, as far as I could tell, were good-faith edits. Therefore, I reverted to Bm gub's text, since Photocopier's rationale for making reversion was incorrect.

Photocopier claims that "Vandalism included the false unreferenced claim Catt grew up in Singapore". It's hard to see how this statement can be called "vandalism", however, I added a fact tag to this statement. Photocopier claims that bm gub removed "factual referenced material". The references for this material is primarily Catt's various websites and Catt's writings about his many theories; it is not material for an encyclopedia, and it's available in the external links for those interested. Finally, Photocopier claims "addition of insults contrary to Wiki rules". These putative insults appear to be the statement "mainstream physicists view Catt's ideas, to the extent that they have heard of them, as pseudophysics." This statement is correct, and in fact Catt quotes many times the fact that mainstream physicists dismiss his ideas.

Overall, Bm gub's rewrite makes the article concise; this seem to be the preferred text to me over the previous version, which had been an unsorted collection of unrelated claims Geoffrey.landis 14:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for injecting some sense here, though I doubt it will last....
Frankly, the issue about Catt growing up in Singapore is irrelevant. The accurate statement, based on Catt's father's autobiography is that Catt was born in England in December 1935, and travelled to Singapore (where his father - an RAF wireless technician - has been posted) before the outbreak of war in September 1939 (there does not appear to be a precise date in the source). Bm gub's elision, although inaccurate, is trivial - about on the same level as the statement in the very first paragraph that Catt has a "B.Eng". Cambridge did not, (and does not,) award such a new-fangled thing - Catt got a BA (in Engineering), which he (like all Cambridge graduates) upgraded to an MA by filling the appropriate form about 3 years after graduating. -- Kevin Brunt 19:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I made the change to state that Catt was born in England, citing the source you note, and made the change of B.Eng. to BA. per your comment. Geoffrey.landis 20:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

.

Homepage | Electromagnetism1 | Old Website

.

Homepage | Electromagnetism1 | Old Website