serengetiplains said:
Might be a duck call?
“No great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness.”
Aristotle
“When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.”
Jonathan Swift
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Catt
Attachments
I don't want my in-box to be polluted by all this nonsense about Maxwell's equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Catt
The Nobel Laureate Dr Gerardus 't Hooft, who won the prize in 1999 for work on electroweak gauge theory, stated recently:
Please remove me from this list. I don't want my in-box to be polluted by all this nonsense about Maxwell's equations. The Maxwell equations correctly describe the propagation of signals as well as the conservation of charge in capacitors, period. Keep me out of any further discussions. [22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Catt
The Nobel Laureate Dr Gerardus 't Hooft, who won the prize in 1999 for work on electroweak gauge theory, stated recently:
Please remove me from this list. I don't want my in-box to be polluted by all this nonsense about Maxwell's equations. The Maxwell equations correctly describe the propagation of signals as well as the conservation of charge in capacitors, period. Keep me out of any further discussions. [22]
I've run across Catt before. He fulfills my first indicator of crackpot, publishing in popular unreviewed journals while claiming that there is a conspiracy against his ideas in the professional community. It's also interesting that while he rails against a mathematical basis for physics he seems to champion Heaviside who built at least one mathematical framework for circuit analysis.
Fair enough. The problem is Catt and Hawksford too, for that matter, are pretty intelligent and well educated in their diciplines so the average layman can't engage them in a useful argument. We have to count on professionals in the scientific community to set aside their time (at usually no compensation) to clearly counter their claims.
As one case, it was reported to me that Hawksfords articles on wire and skin effect were full of misunderstandings (this was from a professor of electromagnetics at a major university). Of course this person has no personal or economic incentive to formally publish a counter article so must remain anonymous.
As one case, it was reported to me that Hawksfords articles on wire and skin effect were full of misunderstandings (this was from a professor of electromagnetics at a major university). Of course this person has no personal or economic incentive to formally publish a counter article so must remain anonymous.
scott wurcer said:
I've no idea about Catt, but Hawksford is an absolute beast in his discipline..major beast.."pretty intelligent", from what I've read from him, is an understatement.
scott wurcer said:
That person would be correct.
Using the TEM wave equation for skin depth in a cylindrical conductor is erroneous, leading to incorrect results. It is best used for planar structures of infinite dimensions, not for wires. Using the approximation equation beyond it's useful range is not going to produce results consistent with reality.
Ignoring the internal permeability of a steel conductor, while using the math derived for a copper one is also an error. This he did within his article.
There are a few more errors of assumption, but two will do..
Cheers, John
While (in my opinion) that is not how he should be, it would not enter into my decision about whether or not to ignore any scientific or mathematical results that he might produce.
I find Ivor Catt 'over the top' and I have told him so, BUT he knows a lot more than most here do, including the 'educated'. He got more caught up in the 'battle' rather than winning anyone over, and this is sad. I find the same problem with Ken Hotte and Peter Belt, but I DO respect them all, and I know that I can learn from them, and I try to at every chance.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.