|
|
This site contains various subjects. Each subject I am involved with is plagued by suppression. However, censorship itself is a major discipline. This results in difficulties in layout of the website. Further headings on my home page try to delimit each subject, providing a tree or daisy chain of documents. This page, in contrast, will discuss each document and provide direct access to it. If you use this Guide, I suggest that you return each time after reading a document.
My major contribution is a breakthrough in electromagnetic theory called Theory C, one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of all time. First published in Wireless World in dec80, it is not available on disc except in a brief summary in one of my books. (Also see end of this document.)
|
This will include all my books. Suppression Theory In date order. (Other authors in brackets.)
The Rise and Fall of Bodies of Knowledge
The Scientific Reception System as a Servomechanism ( By H. Caton. Truth Management in the Sciences. Product Control in the Truth Industry. ) (Why Academic Jargon Thrives, by Brian Martin http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/92aust09.html) The Politics of Knowledge (Lecture to the Ethical Society). Absolute Truth. Lecture ends with a proof that absolute truth exists. My 1996 book The Catt Anomaly discusses ongoing censorship in electromagnetism. 1998 I.E.E. article on the anomaly. The International Incident. The Josephs - Gossick - I.E.E. clash. New Scientist struggles to remain out of date. The Clever take the Brilliant. Falsification in Modern Physics The Betrayal of Science by Modern Physics Computer architecture 'Sinclair and the 'Sunrise' Technology' by Adamson and Kennedy. The Catt Spiral project at Sinclair. Quakers The main thrust is about censorship within the Society of Friends. A.I.D.S. Sue Warman's dissertation on AIDS. Direct access. Global Warming . Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen.The politics of global warming.
The Politics of A.I.D.S. and the Politics of Global Warming. Very similar. Breakdown of the Legal System. Stewart Rein. http://www.betterdivorce.com/crcnyc/testmny.htm Family Breakdown. (Jan99) 9jan99. The traditional family faces a minority role. http://www.interlog.com/%7Eparental/committe/Brief.htm#Introduction A comprehensive analysis from Canada of the marginalisation of fathers which mirrors the situation in England. It includes all those points I tend to emphasise; suppression and falsification of statistics; the fact that a child has no legal right of access to its parent; exaggeration of family violence by the Domestic Violence Industry; separation of maintenance orders from access orders; misuse of ex parte ousters; custody granted almost exclusively to mothers; propaganda to demonise men and fathers; massively funded "Women's Studies" and no "Men's Studies"; Govt. funding for women's organisations and none for men's organisations; the feminist movement benefitting a small minority of women; etc. This article shows me that since our present ills are international, they must be an outgrowth of international radical feminist propaganda. We can see that the Retreat Strategy (see "Family Breakdown" on my Home Page) is fully appropriate for Canada. When it was devised, R and I realised that "Retreat" applied to any country - Australia, Canada, which was in the English legal tradition. A new idea in the article is the hijacking of a child's civil rights by its mother; never before clearly stated.http://www.interlog.com/%7Eparental/committe/Brief.htm#Introduction .Access to Daniel Amneus.. Non govt. funding of R&D is a mess, little better than govt. funding. Kealey will find out. My father's meetings with T.E. Lawrence |
Censorship. Discussion.
Today, censorship places a massive burden on the elan vital. Generally, one who has the misfortune to make a major breakthrough is written out of society. Finding he cannot publish or record his breakthrough, he stalls. He knows that further progress in his speciality is valueless, since, having failed even to record the major advance already made, he will merely increase the separation between himself and society. The best examples of someone with further major contributions to make, but who is permanently stalled, are Theocharis. The pigmies, who populate his field of work, and (unlike him) draw salaries for doing so, all know that he must not be published. The widely published reaction to his article in Nature 15oct87 "Where science has gone wrong" was strident, much like that to my first article on electromagnetism in Wireless World in dec78. An editor who published more of his work would be ostracised. Chief Censor Maddox (editor of Nature) wrote to Theocharis effusively (one full page) about his article when he accepted it. However, his reason was political. Theo's article served Maddox in an internal wrangle between Science and Philosophy of Science. His next article, unfortunately, did not support Science, the subculture that Maddox identified with. Worse, it explored errors within science. Maddox summarily rejected it in a one-sentence letter; "It is too soon after your first attempt to stir up things." Ten years later, it remains too soon.
The Sokal Hoax is a hijacking by salaried pigmies of some of Theo's concerns published by him ten years ago. They do not reference Theocharis's writings on the subject. They will attempt to gradually infiltrate the subject into academia, while shutting out the experts.
Another man who remains stalled is Heinz Lipschutz. In Electronics World, May 1992, page 424, Phil Darrington discussed the many inventions of his which were spurned by the British. His position finding equipment would have saved the lives of many of our pilots during the war. His U-plane, a very cheap, heavier than water submarine which submerges to six miles and gives its owner military command of the world, is ignored today, as it has been for fifty years. I might also solve the world's energy problems.
My own case illustrates the problem is Technicolor.
Unlike Theocharis, Lipschutz and so many others, I survive because (1) I made half a million pounds out the sale of my first invention, even after the fifteen year delay, when the patents were running out, and (2) I diversified. I was into invention and also discovery at the same time, and so saw that I was confronting a deeply conservative society with a paranoid fear of innovation, across the board. I then retreated into studying the mechanism of suppression, which is a very rich field for research, as you can see from this website. Curiously, in the 70's, censorship was the only subject that I could publish on! (This must be because censorship defends vested interest in an obsolete body of knowledge. Analysis of this kind of defence is not such a direct threat as would be publication of up to date information within the body of knowledge being defended.)
The error is to think that you live in a century which is an advance beyond the nineteenth, which was still within the Enlightenment. The twentieth is, in contrast, a medaeval society, but lacking the brutal sanctions of the middle ages. Today, an Iron Curtain has descended across Science from the Wash to Los Angeles. From there, it has broadened out to cover all the other disciplines which developed during the Age of Reason. Scientists in obscure countries are not free from this. They look to the "Science Vatican" (Cambridge/MIT) for their orthodoxy.
As Chomsky says, it is not sufficient to feign Political Correctness. One has to iternalise it, or one will not be published. Even as someone who became wealthy on the back of innovation, I advise anybody who has an original idea to take a cold shower and try hard to forget all about it.
The Editor of EW+WW suppresses too! The only journal that would publish me from 1978 to 1988 now boycotts me. I talked to Ivall, the editor who published me and whom the present censoring editor adulates, when the present editor took office. Ivall warned me to be gentle with him, describing him as "diffident". (Ivall, greatly respected, has since died.)
________________________
Theory C.
________________________
This website contains a copy of the historic first article on e-m published by Catt, Davidson and Walton in dec78; "Displacement Current". Its content is still unknown to every lecturer in electromagnetism in the world. Try getting one to admit in writing (preferably by email to me) that he knows it! In another place in my website I offer £50 to the first student who prevails on his accredited (having established expertese in e-m) lecturer to put down written comment on The Catt Anomaly. The amount on offer will increase yearly.
My book "Electromagnetic Theory Vol 2", pub. C.A.M. Publishing oct80, contains a description of the key events leading up to the discovery of Theory C on 27 May 1976. (Theory C was witheld for four years to establish that we were not in a race. How wrong I was! Today, 20 years later, every accredited expert in electromagnetic theory in the world will assert that he has never heard of Theory C! So much for my fear of a race, or of plagiarism! Rejected for publishing by all learned journals in the world, it was finally published in Wireless World in dec1980.) Here is a copy of the notes I made, signed and dated 27may76 which were countersigned and dated 28may76 by my co-researcher Malcolm Davidson.
[Start of 27may76 notes]
Electromagnetic Theory.
First, a brief, hurried summary of the latest developments in the subject. Details will be filled in later.
Whereas usually the electric current is said to cause the fields within a (two wire) transmission line, Oliver Heaviside says "We reverse this"; the field (flux) travels down between the wires and causes an electric current in the wires.
We shall call the normal theory, the conventional theory, that current flows down the wires and causes the E-M field the Normal Theory, or Theory N. Heaviside's theory, that the field flows down between the wires and causes current in the wires we shall call Theory H.
The third, most recent theory is a step beyond Theory H and is called the Catt Theory, Theory C. In this theory, the field (flux) flows down between the wires and there is no electric current. Heaviside probably never got this far, although it will be necessary to research his latest writings to confirm this. [oct98. This has now been done. Heaviside did not have Theory C. Mike Gibson, who co-published with me, is the expert on Heaviside's writings. I later met both Gossick and Josephs, both of whom are now dead.] It is noticeable that Gossick (and I think also Josephs) says that Heaviside went senile, and Gossick says that his later writings should be dismissed. Gossick has dismissed the concept of Energy Current (the essence of Theory C) and so can safely be classified as holding on to Theory N.
To a Theory N man, the assertion that there was no electric current would lead to the conclusion that the speaker or writer was senile.
In general, what follows will be aspects of Theory C.
The velocity of an energy current in a perfect conductor is zero. That is, energy current cannot enter a perfect conductor. (Velocity for a perfect conductor is zero and permittivity is infinite.)
Capacitors.
All capacitors behave as transmission lines in the manner described for parallel voltage planes in my paper, IEEE Trans. On Electronic Computers, Dec1967, page 744. Because dielectric constant is very high, the outwards velocity of propagation is very slow.
ESR is the initial characteristic impedance of the transmission line.
[End of 27may76 notes.
Here is a summary of Theory taken from my 1995 book "Electromagnetics 1", the whole of which is available elsewhere on this website.
Theory C.
Theory C asserts that if a battery is connected via two wires to a lamp, there is no electric current in the wires. However, energy current travels from battery to lamp in the dielectric between the wires.
History of the Development of Theory H and beyond.
From my book Electromagnetic Theory vol.2, pub. C.A.M. Publishing 1980.
I entered the computer industry when I jointed Ferranti (now I.C.L.) in West Gorton, Manchester, in 1959. I worked on the Sirius computer. When the memory was increased from 1,000 words to a maximum of 10,000 words in increments of 3,000 by the addition of up to three free-standing cabinets, there was trouble when the logic signals from central processor were all crowded together in a cableform 3 yards long. The logic signal current pulses - each down a single sire with common return via a shield (through one or two pins on each plug and socket) were NEURON logic signals, 1 microsecond wide current pulses driven by 9 volts.
The crosstalk was regarded by everyone as caused by mutual capacitance. However, Gordon Scarrott [oct98 who died recently] suggested mutual inductance as the cause. This was the first time I had heard the suggestion of mutual inductance as a mechanism of interference. Sirius was the first transistorised machine, and mutual inductance would not have been significant in previous thermionic valve machines with high voltages (300v) and low currents (ma).
In 1964 I went to Motorola to research into the problem of interconnecting very fast (1nsec) logic gates. I solved all the problems, and we delivered a working partially populated prototype high speed memory of 64 words, 8 bits/word, 20nsec access time, 20nsec cycle time. (See article in Fall Joint Computer Conference 1966.) We won the follow-on contract against competition from Texas Instruments, and later delivered a fully populated memory.
I developed theories to use in this work, which are outlined in my IEEE Dec. 1967 article (EC-16, no. 6).
One of the problems to be solved was the question of what was the nature of the voltage decoupling given by two parallel voltage planes. I told Bill Herndon about the problem, and he gave me the answer: "It's a transmission line." (See my book Digital Electronic Design vol 2 p211.) I said, "Is that your idea?" He said, "No, I wish it was. It's Stopper's idea." Stopper, a German, had previously worked with Bill at G.E. Phoenix. Later he returned to Germany. I never met Stopper. [oct98. In the '80's he was with Burroughs (now Unisys) in the U.S.A.]
The fact that two voltage planes when used as voltage decoupling at a point look like a transmission line was for me an important breakthrough. (N.B. There is an important arithmetic error in my treatment of the subject in my Dec. 1967 paper.)
So we see Stopper and W. Herndon as being part of the history of the development of Theory H and beyond. Stopper came up with the idea, and Herndon had the ability to transmit it. Herndon later went to Fairchild in Silicon Valley.
The idea that parallel voltage planes, when entered at a point, behave like a transmission line, was the beginning of the end of Maxwell's "Displacement Current".
I never (as far as I can remember) translated this concept into the insides of a component sold (and described as) a capacitor - at least not for many years.
In late 1975, Dr. David Walton became acquainted with me and the idea of a co-operative business activity arose. However, electromagnetic theory seemed to be the main, overriding common interest.
Among other things, Walton read my article asserting that, contrary to the popular view, the high frequency performance as voltage decoupling capacitors of 10 microfarad electrolytics was no worse than that of 20,000 pF mica and other types. Walton showed that my experiment to prove the point had a flaw because the circuit was heavily damped, far more than critically. [nov98. Goodness knows what this means!]
Walton kept hammering away at trying to understand the performance of capacitors - both Walton and I asserted that there was no mechanism to make capacitors inductive.
I said that a high capacitance capacitor was merely a low capacitance capacitor with more added.
Walton then suggested a capacitor was a transmission line. I grabbed this idea - which was of course a reappearance of the Stopper idea in another form.
Then one night, as he was wont to, Walton phoned me up and talked about a number of things - how he knew he should get sine waves out of his thinking but how difficult it was to do so; how he wondered how the particle came in to Faraday's Law of Induction; that perhaps the law was only an approximation and did not hold exactly at the atomic level. I for my part wanted no particles introduced into the argument. Then Walton raised the point about a "Faraday's Law" loop with a capacitor as part of the loop. [nov98. There is a diagram of a loop of wire with the amount of magnetic flux threading the loop changing. A capacitor is part of the wire loop.]
I said that if instead of a C you had the end of a very long transmission line, it would look just like a resistor: a wave started out down the transmission line. [nov98. The diagram looks like a balloon with a neck sticking out]
Walton said: "So that gets rid of displacement current."
That statement was enormously important. Maxwell's displacement current was gone, after more than 100 years.
Walton and I promptly agreed that a capacitor was a transmission line. Because of the high permittivity, the wave travelled outwards very slowly.
Walton said, "If the capacitor is a transmission line, what about the inductor?"
(Walton said later that for some time he had thought that everything should be a transmission line.)
I refused to talk any more, saying it was enough for one evening to get rid of displacement current.
Next day, I was talking to Malcolm Davidson (at work at G.E.C.) about it, and told him that a capacitor was a transmission line and displacement current was no more. (Davidson and I had been discussing electromagnetic theory quite a lot.)
Then with Davidson sitting by me, I told him that I had refused to consider the inductor the night before over the long distance telephone with Walton. I then tried it out, and the answer was there within five minutes. (Meanwhile Walton was working to the same conclusion with the inductor and the transformer.)
The resulting transmission line models for reactive components are discussed in the next chapter.
Then, while talking to Malcolm Davidson, the realization hit Catt, and he said, "The electric current goes!" This was shattering. No electric current! What was the point of electric current? What did it do? Who had ever seen one? Then Ivor showed Malcolm that if permittivity in a conductor was approaching infinity, the velocity of an energy current would approach 0. A perfect conductor was a brick wall to an energy current!
Whereas in Theory N, electricity was the cause and E-M field the effect; for (Theory H) Heaviside, E-M field (energy current) was the cause and electric current the effect; for Theory C, now developing, Energy Current (E-M field) was the cause and there was no effect. When water flowed down inside a pipe, the pipe experienced no effect. Nothing flowed inside the metal piping! Energy Current flowed where it was allowed to flow, and that was all.
Earlier in the same conversation, Malcolm Davidson had said that an RC waveform should be able to be built up from little steps, illustrating the validity of the transmission line model for a C. Catt had been thinking that loss, or distortion, was necessary for a capacitor to behave well, that otherwise reflections from the edges would upset performance. Davidson had thought that a perfect transmission line would be fine, and Catt changed to the same view. (The model was later published in Wireless World in December 1978. [nov98. Previously rejected for publishing by all learned journals in the world.]).
[End of quote from Electromagnetic Theory vol. 2
nov98. Heaviside mentions Energy Current only twice, in his early writings. Since he was suppressed, I had no access to him. (My co-author Mike Gibson {who has a website full of holiday photos} is the top expert on Heaviside's five volumes of writings.) I had to reinvent the concept when I worked on high speed logic interconnection at Motorola Phoenix Ariz. in the 1960's. It then took me ten years to discover Theory C, which has, in its turn, been suppressed since then for twenty years. You will not get written comment on Theory C from anyone employed and salaried to research or teach electromagnetic theory. Note that the retrieval of Heaviside's concept of Energy Current, necessary for his work on undersea Morse signalling and again needed a century later for my very similar work on high speed logic interconnection, has been blocked for thirty years. No student of Electromagnetic Theory will hear of Heaviside's Energy Current (Electrical Papers Vol 2 pub. 1892, p91. First published 14jan1887. Revived by Catt in Wireless World July 1979. Since forgotten again.). It follows that this century, since it suppresses major advances for most of the duration of the century, is not a scientific century. It cannot be. By definition, for an era to be scientific, scientific communication must be possible. We cannot communicate on science in the twentieth century. Delays in the publication of major scientific advances and delays in any other mode of communication have made up a large fraction of the present century.
Ivor Catt nov98
[Added 27nov98. At last, an IEE journal contains discussion of the Catt Anomaly. Maybe in another decade or two, the IEE will dare to publish some of my own theories, not merely my question about classical theory. Publication of The Catt Anomaly by the IEE (first mentioned in a letter in Wireless World in August 1981) required both a 15 year struggle, and also that Dr. Arnold Lynch, doyen of the IEE, betray the forces of darkness. However, even after all that, it was published in an inappropriate section of the IEE, thus enabling any "experts" in the IEE or in academia to ignore it, as they will. My friend Robert Whiston says that the explanation of why, after the IEE blocked its publication for decades, the Catt Anomaly should finally be published in an inappropriate IEE journal, is all in Machiavelli. Lynch continues to try to get the IEE to publish it in an appropriate journal.]
File no. yatguide.htm 29oct98