Appendix 2

We start with a conventional view of a battery with voltage V connected via two uniform perfect conductors to a resistor R (Fig.1). A steady current flows round the circuit, through battery, conductors and resistors. Ohm's Law tells us that the voltage equals the current multiplied by the resistance. Therefore the current is I = V/R. Every point on the surface of the upper conductor is at potential V, and every point on the surface of the lower conductor is at a zero potential.

The space between the two conductors, shown in cross section (Fig. 2), is filled by tubes of electric displacement D. Each tube of electric displacement terminates on unit positive charge on the upper conductor and unit negative charge on the lower conductor . If the capacitance between the two conductors is C, then the total charge on each conductor is given by Q= CV. If the capacitance per unit length is c, then the total charge per unit length on each conductor is q=cV

The energy stored in the electric field between the conductors is

Ud=½ CV2 (Ref. 1), or ud=(½)cV2 per unit length.

The space between the two conductors is filled by tubes of

magnetic flux which encircle the current in the conductor.

If the self inductance of the pair of conductors is L, then the total magnetic flux passing between the conductors is F = L I. If the self inductance per unit length is l, then the magnetic flux per unit length is f = l I.

The energy stored in the magnetic field created by the current in the two conductors is Ub=½ L I2, or ub=(½) l I2 per unit length (Ref. 2).

Power is delivered by the battery into the circuit at a rate of watts which is the product of voltage and current VI. The resistor absorbs power at the same rate, turning electric power into heat, which then radiates from it.

The energy trapped in the fields between the conductors totals

Ud+Ub=½ CV2 +½ L I2 (1)

The energy stored in each unit length is ud+ub= (½)cV2 + (½) l I2 (2).

Battery and resistor. Initial state.

Now let us turn to the conventional view of the initial conditions. We will insert two switches, one in the top conductor and one in the bottom conductor (Fig.3). When we close the two switches, the distant resistor cannot define the current which rushes along the wires because the wave front has not yet reached the resistor (Figs.4,5). Lacking knowledge of the value of the resistor, the current is defined by the characteristic resistance Zo of the pair of conductors (usually called their characteristic impedance). Thus, V/I = Zo. So the instantaneous current is V/Zo. Instead of delivering this power to the resistor, the battery delivers it into the space between the conductors for the first few nanoseconds. The wave front travels to the right at the speed of light for the vacuum ©. In our case, where the resistor is at a distance S from the battery, the wave front reaches the resistor after a time ©/S. During this initial time, the battery supplies the energy necessary (eqn.1) to set up the electric and magnetic fields in the space between the conductors. The energy delivered by the battery during the time ©/S when the wave front travels from battery to resistor is VI ©/S.

The characteristic resistance is Zo = Ö(l / c) . (Ref. 3) (3)

Simple algebra will show that in the initial (transient) case, electric and magnetic energy are equal (to u), as follows.

The energy in the electric field is ud= (½)cV2 (Ref.1).

Now V/I = Zo (i.e. V= I2Zo2). We can rewrite (½)cV2 as (½)cI2Zo2.

Now substitute l/c for Zo2 (eqn.3) and we get (½) l I2 (=ub), the energy in the magnetic field.

Therefore ud=ub=u1 .

Now let us show that the energy (which we shall call 2u2 ) delivered by the battery in time 1/© equals the energy stored in the fields (2u1 ) in a section of unit length. Power from the battery is VI. One second's worth of this power charges up a length ©. So the energy stored in unit length is 2u=VI/©, where © is the velocity of light. But we know that © = 1 / Ölc (Ref. 4). So VI/© becomes VIÖlc . Substitute for I using the formula I=V/Zo, to give 2u2 = (V2/Zo)Ölc. Then using the formula (3) for Zo we end up with 2u2 = cV2, which is twice the energy ud{=(½)cV2} in the electric field.

Therefore 2u=2u(=2u).

If the terminating resistor is equal to the transmission line's characteristic impedance, then there is no reflection. The battery thinks the transmission line has infinite length. It continues to deliver power at the initial rate.

Unterminated transmission line.

If the resistor is missing, then all of the energy travelling to the right at the speed of light is reflected and begins the return journey to the left.

Let us consider the case where the line length is S, and time 3S/2© has elapsed since the switches were closed (Fig.6). The field situation in the first half is as before, the energy per unit length being VI/©; half of it [u=(½)VI/©] in the electric field and half in the magnetic field. In the last half, a returning wave front of equal energy density is superposed on the energy making its outward journey. Magnetic fields cancel out, and the second half appears to be a steady charged capacitor, charged to an amplitude 2V. Our formula U=(½)cV2 is thought to give us the electric field's energy per unit length. Since the voltage has doubled, the energy appears to have quadrupled to (½)c(2V)2 =2cV2(=4u) instead of the (½)cV2(=u) associated previously with the single electric field. Thus, double the electric field has led to four times the energy because the formula for energy contains the square of the voltage. This quadrupling is untrue, because the two electric fields, one travelling to the right and the other to the left, have no relationship with each other. The reality is that each electric field contains energy u per unit length, totalling 2u, not 4u, of electric energy. The missing energy is contained in the invisible magnetic fields. These are invisible because the leftwards travelling magnetic field makes the equal rightwards travelling magnetic field invisible to our measuring instruments. Thus, in the last half, the energy per unit length is made up as follows; u in the forward travelling electric field, u in the forward travelling magnetic field, u in the backward travelling electric field, and u in the backward travelling magnetic field. It is a mathematical accident that we get the correct answer for total energy when we wrongly think that the last half of the transmission line is steadily charged with electric field, and no magnetic field exists. Pace our calculations, the total energy density from electric fields is 2u not 4u.

Appendix 3

Letter to the Editor, Electronics World + Wireless World, published in May95

What Conspiracy?

In a letter to WW in nov81, JL Linsley Hood writes that "censorship has been effective throughout my own professional career....". He lists nine authors who could not have been published anywhere but in Wireless World.

As Pete Davis (EW+WWDec94) asserts, there is usually no conspiracy to suppress heretical views. There is no need of one, except in some specific instances, because as Charles McCutcheon wrote in the New Scientist (itself a notorious suppressor, but not as bad as Nature) on 29 April 1976, p225, "An evolved conspiracy" suffices. For example, I ran into a discussion in the interval at the Royal Institution seminar to celebrate the centenary of the Michelson-Morley experiment. An American who was setting up an international conference on relativity discussed with one of the lecturers whether ether buffs should be suppressed at that conference. He also asked the lecturer how Harold Aspden should be dealt with. They concluded that if ether believers kept to Establishment mathematics, they should be allowed to put their case.

The American told me he regarded heresy in science much as he regarded heresy in religion. However, more generally, suppression in science results from fear that a new idea will disrupt the normal, calm progression of academic career progress and research funding.

Suppression is the norm rather than the exception. Even Maddox, Editor of Nature, now says he is worried1. With his track record, that is mind-blowing. Scientists have successfully resorted to false authorship and false addresses to get into Nature. The most interesting, and most destructive, is the pandemic suppression of advances relating to the AIDS epidemic. Other experts, whose names I can supply, specialise in the allied subject of fraud in science. Stewart and Feder lead this field.

My first publication on suppression in science was "The Rise and Fall of Bodies of Knowledge", published in The Information Scientist No 12 (4) dec78, pp137-144, where I discuss some of the cases of suppression which litter science. My article was re-published in my book "Electromagnetic Theory vol 1", 1979, p117. All of the content of that book is suppressed, including the point that I raised at the Michelson-Morley centenary seminar, asking about the apparent paradox in their experiment that although Michelson-Morley pre-date wave/particle dualism, both wave and particle have to be assumed at different stages in the experiment to suppress anomalies.

It appears to me that for the experiment to have any value, the light must act as particles during its travel, because parallel waves would interfere with each other and ruin the experiment; but it has to act as waves on arrival in order to determine transit time difference by interference fringes. In the Michelson-Morley centenary seminar, speaker Professor Kilmister said, "That has never been mentioned before". It has never been mentioned since - being suppressed for good reason.

To raise such questions, and there are many, is cheating, like making your pawn move as a combination of knight and bishop in a chess match. Science today is the manipulation of pre-agreed axioms and old knowledge, nothing more. Further, the request for more detailed statements of the axioms, as in my case with Michelson-Morley, is resisted to the death. Today's science resembles the religious service, which should not be interrupted by the raising of theological questions.

My work on Wafer Scale Integration, described in Wireless World July 1981, was always rejected for publication by all learned journals, even though it attracted £16m of funding - including government funding - and became a widely praised product in the field. Of course, its suppression reduced the threat that it would upset the research funding being received in their universities by journal referees for their own approaches to WSI. In spite of my track record, my new WSI invention, see EW+WW March 1989, for which I have worldwide patents, cannot be published in any learned journal.

In a letter in Wireless World, January 1983, I wrote that during 25 years of work, I have never succeeded in publishing any of my work on e-m theory in any British learned journal. This ban now extends to 35 years. However, Davis should particularly think about the refusal of the Establishment, when approached, to clarify the classical theory they are defending. Professor M. Pepper FRS and his boss Professor A. Howie FRS, head of the Cavendish, disagree with each other2 as to where the negative charge comes from in the Catt Anomaly, EW+WW sep87 They refuse to discuss it with us or with each other, or to say that the matter is of no importance. Not only are new theories ignored and suppressed. We also find that the Establishment is nonchalant about its contradictory versions of old theory. See also the co-existing, hopelessly contradictory, versions of a TEM wave pointed out in 'The Heaviside Signal', WW july79, which has been totally ignored.

Ivor Catt

1 He says that suppression is increasing. "The epoch-making paper by Francis Crick and James Watson outlining the structure of DNA, which appeared in nature in 1953, would 'probably not be publishable today', Mr Maddox laments ...." - Daily Telegraph, 1may89, p18.

2 Howie says it comes from the west. Pepper says that (since electrons would have to travel at the speed of light,) it cannot come from the west, and must come from the south. Until this is resolved, we do not have a classical theory. Before it can exist, a theory has to be stated.

Appendix 4

Book Review published in the IEE Journal "Electronics & Communication Engineering Journal October 1995, p218.

Electromagnetism 1 by Ivor Catt Westfields Press 1994

The main body of the text is devoted to transmssion lines ....

There are numerous examples of sloppy argument in the text. .... The flaws in these arguments are easy to see. ....

The author sees an anomaly in the conventional view of the transmission line. This he calls the 'Catt anomaly' and it is the starting point of his proposals for an improved theory.

The 'Catt anomaly': When a TEM wave travels along a transmission line, there must, according to conventional theory, be charge distributions on the surfaces of the conductors behind the wavefront. For a vacuum dielectric the speed of the wavefront is the speed of light so that, according to Catt, the charges on the conductors must travel at the speed of light, which is impossible. This is the 'Catt anomaly'. Since the wavefront does travel at the speed of light, so do the charges, which then have infinite mass. It follows that there cannot be charges on the conductor surfaces and conventional theory must be wrong.

The flaw here is the assumption that the charges move with the wave. whereas in reality they simply come to the surface as the wave passes, and when it has gone they recede into the conductor. No individual charge moves with the velocity of the wave. The charges come to the surface to help the wave go by and then pass the task to other charges further along the line which are already there and waiting. This is the mechanism of guidance and containement. There is no anomaly.

But Catt goes on. Having removed charges from the surfaces of his conductors, he can no longer apply Gauss's law and the displacement current in the wave has to go somewhere. Catt's solution is typically ingenious: the current must continue as displacement current in conductors, which are actually dielectrics with a very high permittivity; there is no conduction current in conductors - ever! Catt's Ockham's Razor has been wielded to remove conduction current as well as electric charge from electromagnetic theory. There is of course the small problem of a value for the permittivity of copper. Catt is equal to the challenge .... the permittivity of copper must be extremely large. ....

.... It is significant that, having introduced his new theory and abolished charge and current ...., he then proceeds to use these concepts quite unashamedly in the rest of the book. ....

There are many other items in this book which give cause for concern, for example the false statement that 'The TEM wave has virtually disappeared from today's electromagnetic theory'.

Catt's belief in his own work is clearly sincere, but this reviewer, after lengthy and careful consideration, can find virtually nothing of value in this book. B. LAGO

The penultimate paragraph echoes Lago's July79 letter in Wireless World attacking my article "Displacement Current" in Wireless World, Dec78 and March79;

.... the articles are wrong in almost every detail and it is vital that this should be clearly demonstrated before undue damage is done. ....

Lago has surfaced just twice with his large spanner. I know nothing of him except that he is at Keele University.

Appendix 5

The Betrayal of science by 'modern physics'.

We can classify disciplines as ranging from hard to soft; from physics, engineering, chemistry, biology; through sociology, psychology; to geography, history, literature, religion. The hard disciplines are described as 'science'. In a soft discipline, a model, theory or fact is still of value even if it is imperfect, flawed. The definition of a hard science could be that it is capable of sustaining a perfect, true, model, theory or fact.

For prestige reasons, the soft sciences - sociology and psychology - try to take on the mantle of the hard sciences by using 'scientific method'; a method of arriving at rigid, 'true', facts, models and theories. They do this in order to gain access to the prestige and funding (NASA-type) that the hard sciences command. So we see subjects trying to move to the left, from soft to hard.

Unknown to the soft science careerists, struggling towards the left, the position of their colleagues at the hard, physics end is uncomfortable. This is because if a theory can be exactly true, it is also brittle; more vulnerable to complete overturn by new developments than is the softer, imperfect theory. Now career advancement is, if anything, a soft subject, not a hard one. So for career reasons, a traitor group in physics has developed a soft discipline called 'modern physics'. These careerists betray science by softening their discipline and so stabilizing the theoretical status quo and with it their career status quo.

An individual's career in hard science is brittle, because it is based on more absolute, therefore more brittle, theories and models. He then makes his position more pliable, and his status and career more secure, by softening the brittleness of his discipline. In doing this he betrays his discipline in order to protect and further his career. 'Modern physics', a bastard pseudo-science, is a soft discipline which has been developed by career physicists unwilling to risk a brittle career in hard science.

Meanwhile, the soft sciences (sociology and psychology) trying to obtain the prestige and funding of the hard sciences are not fearful of this brittleness. In any case 'modern physicists' are telling them that physics is soft.

The signposts on the road from physics to modern physics - from hard science to soft - are: uncertainty; (wave-particle) dualism; confusion of the observer with the observed; relativity; and the use of statistics and probability. Paradoxically, one of these, statistics, also signposts the opposite march of the soft sciences towards the hard. - Ivor Catt. First published as a letter in Electronics and Wireless World, July 1987, p683

Continued