The new railway theory

 

I am grateful to Caroline H Thompson for leading me to a deeper understanding of the railways. I.C. 10may02

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/w99anbk2.htm

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/catanoi.htm

 

The Railon

 

When a train glides over its two guiding rails, it has been erroneously thought that nothing happens within the rails. However, recent advances in electromagnetic theory by Professor Pepper FRS and Dr. Neil McEwan http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/w99anbk2.htm

 http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/catanoi.htm

 have led railway experts Professor Salt and Dr. McSheep to realise that the traditional view is superficial. It is difficult to understand why the train’s obvious need for a guidance mechanism has been overlooked for two centuries.

 

The details of this breakthrough in theory have still to be agreed. Dr McSheep argues that railons travel alongside the train but inside the rails, guiding the train as it goes. He suggests that recent high speed train disasters may have been caused by the difficulty railons have in travelling at today’s higher speeds. In contrast, Professor Salt argues that railons are already present in the rail ahead of the train, and merely rise to the rail surface at the appropriate moment, to guide the train on its way, then receding back into the interior. He suggests that the Hatfield disaster was caused by the failure of the railons to rise up to the surface through the cracks in the rail.

 

In view of its importance for train safety, Salt and McSheep should reconcile the different emphasis in their approaches to railons as soon as possible. Disunity has been at the core of our railway problems for many years.

 

Ivor Catt    10may02

 

[Written and uploaded hours before the 10may02 Potters Bar rail disaster was reported. The train was the 12.45pm from Kings Cross. Email telling readers to look at the above article was emailed out by me at 19.08 on the day of the disaster. Article (above) was uploaded by me onto the www at 19.16 on 10may02, six hours after the disaster, which I first heard of on the next day, 11may02. Preliminary thought is that the cause was faulty points 200 yards south of Potters Bar Station. Alisha travelled in the same direction a few hours earlier, on her way to school in Potters Bar. However, her train slowed down to stop at Potters Bar, so it was not fast enough to cause the rail collapse. The train three hours later, travelling at between 80 and 100 mph, did the trick. IC 11may02]

 


**************************************************************

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS
CAVENDISH LABORATORY
MADINGLEY ROAD
CAMBRIDGE CB3 0HE
From: Professor M. Pepper, FRS June 21, 1993

Ivor Catt, Esq.,
121 Westfields,
St Albans
AL3 4JR

Dear Mr Catt,

….. As the wave travels at light velocity, then charge supplied from outside the system would have to travel at light velocity as well, which is clearly impossible. ….

Yours sincerely,

[signed] M Pepper
cc: Sir Michael Atiyah - Trinity College [Master]
........
Mr. A Weir - Trinity College
........Telephone: 0223 337330

August 23, 1993 Dear Raeto West, …. as a TEM wave advances so charge within the conductor is polarised and the disturbance propagates at right angles to the direction of propagation of the wave .... .... Yours sincerely, M Pepper

***********************************************

To Kathy Symonds 20 April 1995
Phone 01274-384006

Dear Kathy,

…. in "Catt's Anomaly", there is definitely a correct answer, and it is just that the new charge required in the one foot of cable DOES flow from somewhere to the left! The charges DON'T have to travel at anywhere near the speed of light to do this!     …. .... such charge would NOT have to travel at the speed of light in a vacuum! The reason that the sentence cannot be grasped by those "disciplined in the art" is because it happens not to be true!!! It may be obvious to the untutored mind because they haven't had the theoretical training to see why it is wrong. It is exactly at the point where the assertion seems really obvious that you need to think most clearly ….

Best wishes

[signed] Neil McEwan (Dr.), Reader in Electromagnetics
[University of Bradford]

************************************

 McEwan grovels to Pepper FRS

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/01051.htm

[….Next follows the first admission by McEwan that his own view differs from that of exalted Pepper FRS. It has taken from sep96 until now, jan00 - 3 years - to make that advance. That is why we have to conclude that at least the latter part of the twentieth century was a time when it was impossible to communicate on scientific matters; the salaries, prestige and professional and scientific incompetence were of too high an order. {McEwan still does not know that Pepper's boss Howie agrees with McEwan! None of these shysters can communicate with each other. The stakes are too high!}]

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.
….

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.

********************************************************

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. – from B. Lago’s review of Electromagnetism 1 The book is at http://www.ivorcatt.com/em.htm . This means Lago is a Southerner, like Pepper. Full text of review is below.

************************************************

Review of my 1994 book Electromagnetism 1  which is at http://www.ivorcatt.com/em.htm

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'.  http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/17136.htm

http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/20136.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.com/2613.htm

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. ....

May I suggest that your readers will be well advised to approach the "further reading" with caution.

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

-IC feb01

[Also see A difficulty in electromagnetic theory , the Lynch / Catt IEE 10july98, given at the IEE Group S7 conference. - IC]

 

Also see my 1994 book Electromagnetism 1

The IEE rumbles Catt.

 

Riposte
I make the commitment that anyone wishing to counter any assertion made on this site will be guaranteed a hyperlink to a website of their choosing at the point where the disputed assertion is made.    ivor@ivorcatt.com

Ivor Catt. 18june02

 

Scandals in electromagnetic theory http://www.ivorcatt.com/28scan.htm

Malcolm Sargent Festival Choir