January 2011.

Advice on reading “The End of Electric Charge and Electric Current as we know them” Part 1 and Part 2 from Electronics World, January 2011 and February 2011 .

Ivor Catt.

Comments please to ivorcatt@live.co.uk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About classical electrodynamics

The 109 Experiment

 

 

This article develops from my 1967 article

  "Crosstalk (Noise) in Digital Systems" 

where you also get access to the articles cited in 2011

 

.

Behaviour of Editors of key relevant refereed journals.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0113.htm

An earlier analysis

"Nature"

 

Reaching out to Calder in 2013

Summary.

Jim Calder, Editor of Proc.IEEE (2), could neither accept nor reject the paper. When he first said (July 16, 2010) he would get back to me next week, I immediately told my partner Liba and also John Dore FIEE that he would not get back to me. (1 Feb 2011, He still has not got back to me.) This contrasts with Lombardi (1), who did not even reply to my submission, as he admitted four months later. Helen Dyball, Editor at the IEE/IET (3), saying that my article was too short, told me to go to another journal which could publish longer articles, but would not tell me which one.

These are all subterfuges. The truth is that an editor would not survive if he published an article suggesting paradigm shift .

 

1 Feb 2011. Email to

hdyball@theiet.org ; j.calder@ieee.org ; lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU

Dear Helen Dyball, Jim Calder, Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi,

I need to add your comments to the analysis of your behaviour at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x121.htm

Ivor Catt

 

Analysis. 1 , 2 , 3 , 4

 

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

 

Lombardi did not reply to my first email of Saturday, March 20, 2010, so his excuse that my later emails became odder is beside the point. Was my first email odd?

 

1 IEEE Transactions on Computers.

 

From: Ivor Catt

To: Lombardi@ece.neu.edu

Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:34 PM

Subject: For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers

 

To the Editor, IEEE Transactions on Computers,

Fabrizio Lombardi
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Northeastern University
Boston, MA  02115  phone: +1 617.373.4159
Lombardi@ece.neu.edu

 

 

For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Comment in 2013

Even and Odd Modes

My paper; Ivor Catt; "Crosstalk (Noise) in Digital Systems" , pub. IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. EC-16, no. 16, December 1967, now at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm , contained an error. My mathematics, which deduced the two modes, Even and Odd, was based on Faraday's Law. The rest of the paper assumed superposition of the two modes was permissible. However, this is forbidden under Faraday's Law.

The error is fully discussed at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0610.htm .

Ivor Catt

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Ivor Catt is at

+44 (0)1727 864257

121 Westfields,

St. Albans AL3 4JR,

England

www.ivorcatt.co.uk

 

 

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

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>

To: "Ivor Catt" <icatt@btinternet.com>

Cc: <j.calder@ieee.org>; "Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>

Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:53 PM

Subject: Re: For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers

 

>
>
> Hi
>
> over the past months I have received few emails from you, quite frankly I
> am to say the least puzzled by your requests as with time, they are
> getting from unusual to just odd.
>
> I thought that my silence would be better understood by you; unfortunately
> it seems that we are going nowhere. So, in plain terms let me state that
> this is my only and last reply to you: your concerns/items do not fall
> within my duties as EIC of Tc and/or they are not in compliance with IEEE
> CS regulations. So please stop sending me emails.
>
> fl

 

 

 

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

 

Lombardi knows that his behaviour, of failing to reply to an author when the author wants to have publication of a brief statement that there is an error in his previously published article, is ethical because;

 

Ethics is part of the defence mechanism of an entrenched Establishment. Anything done in defence of an entrenched Science Establishment is by definition ethical. Anything attempted which threatens an entrenched Science Establishment (like pointing to a fundamental error in a published refereed journal, and thus a flaw in classical theory) is by definition unethical.

 

The reason why my 75 word statement must be suppressed is that underlying it is a fatal flaw in established scientific dogma. Lombardi took decisive action by not admitting receipt. As pointed out above, this was not unethical, under the new code of ethics.

 

http://www.computer.org/web/pressroom/lombardi

http://www.computer.org/web/volunteers/fabrizio-lombardi

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=1717382

 

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

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>

To: "Ivor Catt" <icatt@btinternet.com>

Cc: <j.calder@ieee.org>; "Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>

Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 6:12 PM

Subject: Re: For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers or Pric. IEEE

 

>
> Dr Catt,
>
>
> If you wish for your work to be considered for publication in IEEE TC you
> need to submit your manuscript electronically through Manuscript Central
> (please refer to www.computer.org for further information as well as
> proper format).
>
> However be advised that over the years TC has changed technical focus, it
> now deals only with computer design (hardware and software) not
> electromagnetics as in its early years (please refer to the scope of TC
> and related answers to common questions by visiting
> http://www.computer.org/portal/web/tc/author).
>
> If you elect to submit your manuscript, the recommendation of further
> reviewing it will be made by an associate editor. As Editor in Chief I am
> the contact person for communication between authors and associate
> editors.
>
> Sincerely
>
> F Lombardi
>
>
>
>  On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Ivor Catt wrote:
>
>> Dear Sirs,
>>
>> I would like to offer the article "The end of electric charge and
>> electric current as we know them."  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0739.pdf
>> for publication in Proc. IEEE or IEEE Transactions on Computers. It is
>> an orphan, and confidential for the time being. Ivor Catt +44 (0)1727
>> 864257

 

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

 

Second copy sent by email and by airmail on 27 June 2010. Web address altered from http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0307.htm to http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0610.htm

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ivor Catt

To: Lombardi@ece.neu.edu

Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:34 PM

Subject: For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers

 

To the Editor, IEEE Transactions on Computers,

Fabrizio Lombardi
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Northeastern University
Boston, MA  02115  phone: +1 617.373.4159
Lombardi@ece.neu.edu

 

 

For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers.

 

@@@@@@@@@@

 

Even and Odd Modes

My paper; Ivor Catt; "Crosstalk (Noise) in Digital Systems" , pub. IEEE Trans. Comput., vol. EC-16, no. 16, December 1967, now at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0305.htm , contained an error. My mathematics, which deduced the two modes, Even and Odd, was based on Faraday's Law. The rest of the paper assumed superposition of the two modes was permissible. However, this is forbidden under Faraday's Law.

The error is fully discussed at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0610.htm .

Ivor Catt

 

@@@@@@@@@@@

 

Ivor Catt is at

+44 (0)1727 864257

121 Westfields,

St. Albans AL3 4JR,

England

www.ivorcatt.co.uk

 

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

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ivor Catt" <icatt@btinternet.com>

To: <j.calder@ieee.org>; <lombardi@ece.neu.edu>; etc.

Sent: Friday, July 09, 2010 6:59 PM

Subject: Re: Nuke revisionism

 

> "Peer review is supposed to bring excellence of work, where team-players get
> their work assessed by their peers. But the negative side is-- once a
> mistake has passed peer review, peer pressure is then to conform to that
> mistake." - Roger Anderton.
>
> My recent, extraordinary discovery is that if one of the "team players" -
> which I was, more or less, in 1967, steps out of line and says he made a
> mistake in his own peer reviewed article, not only is he not allowed to
> announce his mistake in the journal; he does not even get a reply from the
> editor, as the editor Lombardi admitted four months later. Extraordinary.
>
> I asked J Calder, another IEEE editor for advice about how to present the
> results of a forthcoming important experiment.
> http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/965.htm (On their website, the IEEE say they like
> to give such advice to authors.) Calder rejected the article even before the
> experiment has been conducted! The expected result of the experiment,
> proving that a so-called steady charged capacitor not steady, but contains
> energy travelling at the speed of light, is truly revolutionary. Result
> already rejected by Calder, Editor of Proc. IEEE!
>
> Ivor Catt

 

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

 

 

2 Proc. IEEE

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0739.pdf was version submitted.

 

Jim Calder, Editor of Proc.IEEE (2), could neither accept nor reject the paper. When he first said he would get back to me next week, I immediately told my partner Liba and also John Dore FIEE that he would not get back to me. 1 Feb 2011, He still has not got back to me. This contrasts with Llombardi (1), who did not even reply to my submission, as he admitted four months later. Helen Dyball, Editor at the IEE/IET (3), told me to go to another journal which could publish longer articles, but would not tell me which one.

These are all subterfuges. The truth is that an editor would not survive if he published an article suggesting paradigm change.

 

Dear Jim Calder,

 

" .... and we will get back to you next week. .... " Jim Calder,  Friday, July 16, 2010

 

I look forward to hearing from you re http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0742.pdf .

 

Ivor Catt

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0801.htm

 

 

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

 

13 August 2010

 

Dear Jim Calder,

I would like to offer the article "The end of electric charge and electric current as we know them."  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0742.pdf for publication in Proc. IEEE. It is an orphan, and confidential for the time being.
Ivor Catt
+44 (0)1727 864257 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ivor Catt

To: j.calder@ieee.org

Sent: Saturday, August 07, 2010 11:54 AM

Subject: For publication in Proc. IEEE

 

" .... and we will get back to you next week. .... " Jim Calder,  Friday, July 16, 2010

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Ivor Catt

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0801.htm

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ivor Catt

To: j.calder@ieee.org

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 9:39 PM

Subject: For publication in Proc. IEEE

 

" .... and we will get back to you next week. .... " Jim Calder,  Friday, July 16, 2010

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Ivor Catt

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: j.calder@ieee.org

To: Ivor Catt

Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 7:31 PM

Subject: Re: For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers or Pric. IEEE

 


Dear Ivor:
Thanks for your message and the paper suggestion.
We will carefully review this submission and we will
get back to you next week.
Have a Nice Weekend!
Jim Calder


***************************************************************
THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE
Jim Calder
Managing Editor
445 Hoes Lane
P.O. Box 1331
Piscataway, New Jersey  08855-1331
USA
732 562 5478                Fax: 732 562 5456

j.calder@ieee.org or proceedings@ieee.org

IDEAS FOR PAPERS AND SPECIAL ISSUES ARE ALWAYS WELCOMED AND ENCOURAGED!

All new Regular Paper Manuscripts Should be Submitted to Manuscript Central at URL:
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pieee
********************************************************************


From:

"Ivor Catt" <icatt@btinternet.com>

To:

"Prof. Fabrizio Lombardi" <lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU>, <j.calder@ieee.org>

Date:

07/16/2010 12:56 PM

Subject:

For publication in IEEE Transactions on Computers or Pric. IEEE

 





Dear Sirs,

I would like to offer the article "The end of electric charge and electric current as we know them."  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0739.pdf for publication in Proc. IEEE or IEEE Transactions on Computers. It is an orphan, and confidential for the time being.
Ivor Catt
+44 (0)1727 864257



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3009 - Release Date: 07/16/10 07:35:00

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@’

 

3 IEE/IET Electronics Letters

 

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0747.pdf  was the version submitted.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ivor Catt

To: Dyball,Helen

Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 9:07 PM

Subject: Re: End of electric charge

 

"we frequently have to advise authors to expand their work into a full length paper and submit to a different journal. I would advise you to do the same" - Dr Helen Dyball

 

I shall be grateful if you recommend the different journal.

Ivor Catt

 

No reply received from Dyball.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Dyball,Helen

To: 'Ivor Catt'

Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 1:55 PM

Subject: RE: End of electric charge

 

Dear Ivor Catt,

 

I have received the response from our independent expert and I am afraid that they confirmed that the paper as it stands is too speculative to be published in Electronics Letters. To convince the reviewers/readers of the scientific advance, you will need to include much more supporting information, evidence and discussion, which will require more space than is available in the short letter format of Electronics Letters. Not all work is suitable to be published as a short letter, and we frequently have to advise authors to expand their work into a full length paper and submit to a different journal. I would advise you to do the same so that you can fully do your work justice.

 

Thank you for your interest in Electronics Letters.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Helen Dyball

 

Dr Helen Dyball

Managing Editor

The IET

 

www.theiet.org

 

T:  +44 (0)1438 765520

F: +44 (0) 1438 767317

 

The Institution of Engineering and Technology, Michael Faraday House, Six Hills Way, Stevenage, SG1 2AY, United Kingdom

 

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@’

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ivor Catt

To: Dyball,Helen

Cc: John Raymond Dore

Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:36 PM

Subject: Re: Ivor Catt

 

Dear Dr. Helen Dyball,

I was very pleased with your email dated 16 September re http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0747.pdf . I am anxious to fall in with your requrements.

 

"The submission that I have consists of one page of text and 9 figures. It also refers to Appendices I and II that are not attached." resulted from ambiguiry which I will put right. Appendices I and II are part of the 1967 paper cited immediately before.

 

"the submission should be self-contained" I am not sure what to do about this.

 

"It needs to include a definite abstract" This is the first sentence. I shall make this clearer.

 

"introduction (to put the work in context and explain the novelty of the advance)," The problem is that the paper points to a major problem with classical theory. Explanation threatens to lead to the whole article exceeding the limits on size set by "Electronics Letters". However, "Electronics Letters" is the ideal journal for this article.The problem for electric current and charge trying to do its job was already flagged up in 1982 - http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm - in an IEE paper by Lynch and Catt - http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/y7aiee.htm - which was shoved under the carpet. The present paper is a much clearer illustration of the problem for conventional charge and current..

 

"References should also be included to put the advance in context with the state-of-the-art." This is the article cited at the end. There has been no advance in the treatment of the TEM Wave during the last forty years.

 

"so any necessary supporting material must be contained within the body of the letter, or in an accessible reference." This material can be reached at http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0710.htm , cited at the end of the article. I shall expand http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0710.htm to give access to further relevant material.

 

I am very pleased that you wrote; "If you would like to submit again to Electronics Letters, please send your manuscript directly to me first at hdyball@theiet.org ", and I shall do so when I have attempted to carry iout your instructions.

 

Yours sincerely,

Ivor Catt

 

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

 

I emailed 30 Professors of Electronics (and of Electronic Engineering) asking for comment on the article.

One (retired) asked for £5,000 per day consultancy fee. Another said she was too busy. The others did not reply to two emails separated by one month.

 

This behaviour of professors could be predicted by editors of refereed learned journals. However, this prediction does not justify the behaviour of the three editors. Assuming we are dealing with science in its assumed form, the three editors should have given a proper rejection for publication of the article, which none of them did. (The third editor did not recommend a journal which could publish a longer article, but said that it was too long for her journal. She did not then recommend another journal. The fact is that, reading the mission statement of her journal, it is exactly the one to publish this article in the reduced form submitted.)

 

The problem for all of these people – editors, professors, is that it is claimed that the community most desires scientific advance. However, they all have a vested interest in stability.

 

The seriousness of the present crisis was discussed in my article 30 years ago;

 

“By the time fundamental change is needed, we have seen that there are good reasons why the calibre of the 'guardians of the faith', the high priests, will have sunk to an all-time low, becoming worried, inadequate functionaries holding in reverence their predecessors who engineered the era of fast growth and progress. As the need for fundamental change increases, their blocking of communication of new ideas will become more complete and the established institutions more closed and rigid.”

 

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

My college, Trinity College, Cambridge, says it is the most scientific college in Cambridge. The Master Atiyah instructed his Fellow (now) Sir Michael Pepper to comment on "The Catt Question" . He did so in 1993, but contradicted the answer of a Reader in Electromagnetics. Pepper then went incommunicado for thirty years, and proceeded to be awarded numerous prizes (including a knighthood) “for services to Physics”. He now edits the top journal in the Royal Society. Now at UCL, I have asked him to comment on this jan/feb 2011 article. Don’t hold your breath!

From the TV programme on power in England. Ch4 programme at 7.30pm on Sunday 11apr99

"The Establishment"

with Nick Danziger

Trinity, One of the most successful and enduring pillars of the Establishment.

"The Masters of Trinity, one of the most prestigious academic positions.

"Trinity is the largest, richest and most powerful college in Oxbridge. It is the role of the Master to keep the college running smoothly, but also to maintain its status and position in the world."

Interviewer; "…. A little change is good. No change is better."

Atiyah, Master; "Yes. Colleges like this are essentially conservative institutions. When I was a young man I was very enthusiastic for rapid change. I still am to some extent. But if you make very rapid change you make mistakes. Institutions have a lot of built in resistance to change. …. …. …. A network of contacts ….".

Atiyah is a scientist.

This is a rare admission by the Establishment of the situation confronted by my January/Feb 2011 article.

 

 

Analysis

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

 



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ivor Catt <ivorcatt@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@yahoo.com>
Cc: "mahta@usc.edu" <mahta@usc.edu>, "apm-eic@ieee.org" <apm-eic@ieee.org>, "giuseppe.pelosi@unifi.it" <giuseppe.pelosi@unifi.it>, "g.pelosi@ieee.org" <g.pelosi@ieee.org>, "j.calder@ieee.org" <j.calder@ieee.org>, "Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk" <Alex.Yakovlev@newcastle.ac.uk>, "christopher.spargo@gmail.com" <christopher.spargo@gmail.com>, "iet.eee@newcastle.ac.uk" <iet.eee@newcastle.ac.uk>, "students@theiet.org" <students@theiet.org>, "lombardi@ECE.NEU.EDU" <lombardi@ece.neu.edu>, stefano.selleri@unifi.it
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 09:44:18 +0100
Subject: Re: Letter to The Editor

Mahta Moghaddam joins other IEEE editors who were presented with an impossible situation.

The behaviour of other IEEE editors is given here;

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x121.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0801.htm

The extreme was Lombardi. When I wrote 50 words saying there was an error in my 1967 20pp article in the journal he edited, he did not reply.

Obviously what I wrote was nonsense, as he later said, because there are no errors in peer reviewed journals. If an author tries to point out an error in his own peer reviewed article, he must be wrong. The peers were right and the author was wrong.

Pieraccini was very helpful when he pioneered the passage of lies through the "Peer Review Cartel". He exploited the inevitable weaknesses of unpaid peer review by peers who had to keep to and defend the ruling paradigm (which they little understood anyway), or risk career and reputation, as Pieraccini himself has said.  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.htm

It is possible that, thanks to Pieraccini's exposure of the fatal flaws in "The Peer Review Cartel" system (by getting lies and defamation of Catt through the system), we will retrieve science many decades before we would have done without his help. Professor Bruce Charlton says we have to rebuild science from the ground up, in his book entitled "Not Even Trying".

 

Ivor Catt

 

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:47 AM, Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@yahoo.com> wrote:

Professor Mahta Moghaddam, Editor-In-Chief, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine,

Professor Giuseppe Pelosi, Associate Editor, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine,

 

Dear Professors,

 

You have failed to reply to my request for your intention on publication of my Letter to The Editor, titled ‘Catt’s Anomaly?’

 

I revised and shortened my Letter according to your request and thereby expect it to be published in the next issue of IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine. The revision was posted to your IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine online submissions facility and sent to both of you directly. My revised Letter is attached once again, and my responses to Professor Pelosi’s comments on my original Letter as well, since Professor Moghaddam requested me to address them. Both of you received my responses previously.

 

I request you once again to tell me what you are going to do about this.  If, despite my comprehensive revision, you intend not to publish my Letter, I request that you provide me with a right and proper Letter of Rejection, detailing why, in terms of the specific content of my Letter to The Editor.

 

Stephen J. Crothers

28 July 2016

 

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x5cw.htm

 

https://archive.org/stream/Crosstalk/CattQuestion2016PaperByCrothers_djvu.txt

 

 

http://www.gallup.unm.edu/~smarandache/PiP-2016-01.pdf

- Search for “Crothers”

 

 

http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/12/10/the-catt-anomaly-confusion/